what were you doing the day they started dismantling our democracy?

According to the New York Times, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is “going nuclear” today, setting in motion a chain of events that may change the time-honored rules of the U.S. Senate forever. I’ve written about it a lot here in the past, so I won’t bore you with the details, but the bottom line is this — the rules of the U.S. Senate, rules which have seen our nation through so much over the course of the last 200+ years, are being changed so that the Republicans can push through their radical evangelical and pro-business nominees for the judiciary. (In spite of that fact that 95% of Bush’s judicial nominees have been accepted, the rules are being changed so that every single one, even the most out-of-the-mainstream, is pushed though.) The Democrats attempted compromise, but the Republican leadership wanted nothing of it. Here’s a clip from the Times:

The Senate minority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, broke off talks on Monday with his Republican counterpart on efforts to head off a showdown on judicial nominations, saying he could not consent to Republican demands.

“The negotiations are over,” Mr. Reid said as he left the office of the majority leader, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee. “I have tried to compromise, and they want all or nothing, and I can’t do that. It will have to be decided on the Senate floor, hopefully this week”…

Dr. Frist now intends to advance two nominees, two state Supreme Court justices, Priscilla R. Owen of Texas and Janice Rogers Brown of California, on Wednesday.

Harry Reid took to the floor of the Senate Tuesday, and had this to say:

The Majority Leader has stated that the Senate will turn to the subject of judicial nominations this week. Democrats are ready for this fight.

We stand united against an outrageous abuse of power that would pack the courts with out-of-the-mainstream judges.

The time has come for Republican Senators to decide where they stand. Will they will abide by the rules of the Senate, or break those rules for the first time in 217 years of American history? Will they support the checks and balances established by the founding fathers, or vote to give the president unaccountable power to pick lifetime judges?

While Democrats are ready to debate this issue, I am deeply pained that we need to do so. The Senate in which I have spent the last 20 years of my life is a body in which the rules are sacrosanct. We may choose to amend the rules by two-thirds vote. We may enter into unanimous consent to waive the rules. But never before in the history of the Senate has a partisan majority sought to break the rules in order to achieve momentary political advantage…

Right now, from what I can tell, the Republicans may have the votes to pull it off, even though a handful of Senators from their side of the aisle have promised publicly to join the Democrats in opposing this blatant attempt to hijack and radicalize the judicial branch. It’s imperative that all of us who care about the integrity of our Democracy contact our Senators, especially our Republican Senators, and ask that they have the courage to stand up to Bill Frist and the Bush administration and do what they know is right. (You can reach the Senate switchboard at: 202-224-3121.) It’s going to be extremely close and we need every Republican vote we can get.

And, I don’t know if it’s too late or not, but the folks at Move On have come up with a pretty effective ad that they plan to start airing in key states tomorrow. (They’ve already raised half a million dollars to see this accomplished.) If you have a second, check out the ad and forward it to a friend.

I rarely ask for my readers to do anything (except leave comments), but as so much is on the line, including the Supreme Court, the minimum wage, Social Security, and a woman’s right to reproductive freedom, I don’t think I have much of a choice. I need for you to call your Senators today and tell them how you feel (assuming, of course, that you agree with me).

Oh, and here, in conclusion, is a link to an article that ran in today’s New York Times on one of the two controversial judges that Frist will be putting forward tomorrow, Pricilla Owen, and her long history with Karl Rove. Here’s a clip:

Justice Priscilla R. Owen of the Texas Supreme Court declined a chance to be the court’s first female chief justice last year so she could remain one of President Bush’s nominees to a federal appeals court, Texas lawyers and political figures said in recent interviews.

The decision was one of three crucial moments in her judicial career in which she seemed to have been guided by the hand of Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s chief political strategist.

Justice Owen, along with Justice Janice Rogers Brown of the California Supreme Court, is now at the center of the partisan battle in the Senate over changing the filibuster rules. Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, said Friday that the two state justices, whose confirmations have been blocked by Democrats, would be brought to the Senate floor as part of the fight over changing the rules.

Justice Owen was, by all accounts, a respected but little-known lawyer in Houston in 1994 when she was first elected to the State Supreme Court with Mr. Rove’s support and tutelage. Her experience up to then largely involved obscure legal cases involving pipelines and federal energy regulations.

At the time, Mr. Rove was helping to make over the Texas Supreme Court from a bench populated by Democrats widely viewed as favorable to the plaintiffs’ bar – the lawyers who sue companies – to the business-friendly Republican stronghold it is today…

Please contact your Senators. It’s not a painful process, I promise. When you call, a staff person will answer and all you have to do is introduce yourself and say that you’d like the Senator to know that you, a constituent, hope that he or she will vote to preserve minority rights in the Senate by protecting the right to filibuster. It’s really that easy.

Thank you.

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.


  1. Posted May 18, 2005 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    Thanks Mark. I called Maria Cantwell this morning. I think that the guy who is going to be the stopper is Alan Frumin, a republican that is responsible for determiing if the Senate rules are being followed. I am not sure, but I think that the senate will then have to have a 2/3rds majority to overturn his decision.

    Frist is acting like a jackass.


  2. Teddy Glass
    Posted May 18, 2005 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

    Good post over at your site, Mr. Morris. It’s much appreciated.

  3. S. Stover
    Posted May 18, 2005 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    A good piece in today’s Washington Post-


    A Likely Script for The ‘Nuclear Option’

    The “nuclear option” will have a long fuse.

    If all goes as planned, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) will rise after several days of debate beginning today over one of President Bush’s judicial nominees and call for an end to Democrats’ delaying tactics. The presiding officer will then rule in his favor.

    Democrats will protest the ruling and ask for a vote to overturn it. The Republican leader will seek to table that appeal. If Frist and the GOP majority prevail, a long tradition of filibustering will be narrowed and a new precedent will be set allowing the Republicans to force a vote on a nomination with a simple majority instead of three-fifths of the Senate.

    Republicans hold 55 of the seats in the chamber, and until now they have needed 60 votes to end debate and force a vote. But Republicans believe they have figured out how to use the chamber’s rules so that only a simple majority — 51 votes — is required to force an up-or-down vote…

  4. Teddy Glass
    Posted May 18, 2005 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

    You can watch the debate live on-line:


    Dianne Feinstein (D-California) has the floor right now.

  5. mark
    Posted May 18, 2005 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for the links. They’re much appreciated… Depressing as hell, but much appreciated.

  6. john galt
    Posted May 19, 2005 at 8:41 pm | Permalink

    where did you get this 95% figure?????

    its more like 53%

  7. john galt
    Posted May 19, 2005 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

    better data

    Congress President Nominated Confirmed Withdrawn Returned Rejected Senate Composition
    79th Truman 8 7 1 0 0 56D 38R
    80th Truman 3 3 0 0 0 51R 45D
    81st Truman 20 15 0 5 0 54D 42R
    82nd Truman 2 2 0 0 0 49D 47R
    79th-82nd Truman 33 27 1 5 0
    83rd Eisenhower 13 12 0 1 0 48R 47D
    84th Eisenhower 13 11 0 2 0 48D 47R
    85th Eisenhower 12 11 0 1 0 49D 47R
    86th Eisenhower 13 12 0 1 0 65D 35R
    83rd-86th Eisenhower 51 46 0 5 0
    87th Kennedy 22 17 0 5 0 65D 35R
    88th Kennedy/Johnson 7 7 0 0 0 67D 33R
    89th Johnson 26 25 0 1 0 68D 32R
    90th Johnson 13 12 0 1 0 64D 36R
    87th-90th Kennedy/Johnson 68 61 0 7 0
    91st Nixon 23 20 2 1 0 57D 43R
    92nd Nixon 18 18 0 0 0 54D 44R
    93rd Nixon/Ford 13 10 0 3 0 56D 42R
    94th Ford 11 9 0 2 0 60D 37R
    91st-94th Nixon/Ford 65 57 2 6 0
    95th Carter 12 12 0 0 0 61D 38R
    96th Carter 49 44 1 4 0 58D 41R
    95th-96th Carter 61 56 1 4 0
    97th Reagan 20 19 0 1 0 53R 46D 1I
    98th Reagan 22 14 1 7 0 55R 45D
    99th Reagan 34 33 0 1 0 53R 47D
    100th Reagan 26 17 2 7 0 55D 45R
    97th-100th Reagan 102 83 3 16 0
    101st G.H.W. Bush 23 22 0 1 0 54D 46R
    102nd G.H.W. Bush 31 20 0 11 0 56D 44R
    101st-102nd G.H.W. Bush 54 42 0 12 0
    103rd Clinton 22 19 0 3 0 57D 43R
    104th Clinton 20 11 1 8 0 52R 48D
    105th Clinton 30 20 1 9 0 55R 45D
    106th Clinton 34 15 1 18 0 55R 45D
    103rd-106th Clinton 106 65 3 38 0
    107th* G.W. Bush 32 17 0 15 0 D50 R49 1I
    108th G.W. Bush 34 18 1 16 0 R51 D48 1I
    107th-108th G.W. Bush 66 35 1 31 0

  8. john galt
    Posted May 19, 2005 at 8:45 pm | Permalink

    sorry this site suxxors, cant paste html.

  9. john galt
    Posted May 19, 2005 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

    more horrors from lexis nexus

    LexisNexis: Women in Politics Progressing Faster Than Women in Business
    Database search finds huge lag time in high-level appointments

    DAYTON, OH, October 01, 2004 – The White House track record of appointing women to high-level political positions is always noted, tracked, counted and recorded (and often given an abysmal record by advocacy groups), but when compared to corporate America, women in politics hold positions in higher echelons than women in business, according to analysis of information sources in LexisNexis

  10. Tony Buttons
    Posted May 20, 2005 at 11:57 am | Permalink

    You people are brilliant. You really are. You nominate a woman like Janice Rogers Brown and then when it’s pointed out that she holds beliefs that fall very much outside the American mainstream, you suggest that the only two reasons she’s being opposed are – because she’s black, and because she’s a woman. The fact that she thinks our government was hijacked by a socialist revolution with the New Deal isn’t, it seems, enough reason to vote “no.” Most Americans agree with the minimum wage. Just because you can find minorities and women to disagree, doesn’t mean that’s not the case.

  11. Ken
    Posted May 20, 2005 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    My favorite is that computer looking code thing with all the presidents in it. It is so easy to read. The best part is that it is titled, “Better Data” as some kind of jedi mind trick.

  12. john galt
    Posted May 20, 2005 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

    well ken you can see from my comment that I tried to paste an html table, but the site wouldn’t accept the tags, so all you get is the data.. If I had the time I’d make a nice graph for you or something, but knowing that you would just disregard it and critisize the choice of colors I used or something, I won’t bother.

  13. john galt
    Posted May 20, 2005 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

    The other thing I find Ironic about this situation is that the same people who were chanting “count every vote” in fla. Are now creating a scare campain designed to stop a vote from being held. Its not that republicans are trying to keep them from voting, they just want a vote to be held. The same people who crucified Gingrich for “shutting down the government” are now whinning because they might not be allowed to further impede the workings of the republic.

  14. Ken
    Posted May 20, 2005 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

    Why don’t you just tell where you got it so that I don’t think you made it up.

  15. john galt
    Posted May 20, 2005 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

    this isn’t where I got that graph, but same if not more detailed data


  16. john galt
    Posted May 20, 2005 at 7:16 pm | Permalink

    heres the source for the data in the above post


  17. john galt
    Posted May 20, 2005 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

    apparently my post about an anti-semetic broadcast in iran was deleted from the site, so why not cross post… I don’t know why mark would delete the post, all I was attempting to do was illustrate what is being shown in other parts of the world, as a reference by which to judge how egregious our own actions are.. mind you this is an ugly broadcast I do not in any way endorse it as true. But much has been written on this site about how american’s demean other countries.. Shouldn’t we see what their governments are approving for broadcast (Iran is a theocracy, this had to pass Govt censors in that country). Mark If you thought that I meant the post as endorsing it, then I have no problem with you deleting it. I do not endorse it and was enraged when I saw it.

    here’s a quick repost of the transcript.


    the video of the broadcast is avail at


    you have to scroll down aways.

  18. john galt
    Posted May 20, 2005 at 7:46 pm | Permalink

    continuing the theme, this is what happens if newseek “offends” them


    notice this is a UK paper, not fox news.

  19. Jim
    Posted May 20, 2005 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

    John, the numbers on the two sites you give don’t agree–can you sort this out for us?

  20. john galt
    Posted May 20, 2005 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

    the senate data looked very close to me, can you point out the problem? There is a distiction in the data between appellate and district courts.. That could be the problem. If there’s an issue I’d go by the senate data which still showed a conf. of 5~% for GWB.

  21. Ken
    Posted May 20, 2005 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

    John, nothing got deleted. You have just managed to spray your comments so far and wide that you are having trouble keeping track of them. It is over here.

  22. john galt
    Posted May 20, 2005 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

    whoops, my bad.. Sorry Mark.

  23. john galt
    Posted May 20, 2005 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

    strange thing is that noone on this site has commented on the post. Either they agree with it, or they want to ignore it for some reason… Makes throwing a book on the floor or building a human pyramid look pretty tepid to me. If it was just a private person broadcasting this, I’d just write them off as a crackpot, but this is sanctioned by the same govt. which is is building nuclear weapons and missles to send them aloft… Of course it would be criminal for the US to intercede in that matter until the missles were actually in-flight (pre-emptive war)

  24. john galt
    Posted May 20, 2005 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

    oh sorry for offending iran… this just in from the AP…
    I’d hate to offend the sensitive iranian’s who brodcast blood-libel tv shows about jews.


    (AP) As a copy of the Islamic holy book Quran is held by a man, foreground right, Iranians attend an…
    Full Image

    VIENNA, Austria (AP) – Iran is circumventing international export bans on sensitive dual-use materials by smuggling graphite and a graphite compound that can be used to make conventional and nuclear weapons, an Iranian dissident and a senior diplomat said Friday.

    Graphite has many peaceful uses, including steel manufacture, but also can be used as a casing for molten weapons-grade uranium to fit it to nuclear warheads or to shield the cones of conventional missiles from heat.

    With most countries adhering to international agreements banning the sale of such “dual-use” materials to Tehran, Iran has been forced to buy it on the black market, Iranian exile Alireza Jafarzadeh told The Associated Press – allegations confirmed by a senior diplomat familiar with Iran’s covert nuclear activities.

    Phone calls to Iranian diplomats seeking comment were not answered.

    While with the National Coalition of Resistance of Iran, Jafarzadeh disclosed information about two hidden nuclear sites in Iran in 2002 that helped uncover nearly two decades of covert Iranian atomic activity – and sparked present fears Tehran wants to build the bomb.

    Much of the equipment – including centrifuges for uranium enrichment and other technology with possible weapons applications – was acquired on the nuclear black market.

    Those implicated include Dutch businessman Henk Slebos, who is awaiting trial in the Netherlands on charges of importing banned material – including 100 pieces of graphite – as part of disgraced Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan’s clandestine smuggling network.

    Jafarzadeh, whose organization was banned in the United States for alleged terrorist activity and who now runs the Washington-based Strategic Policy Consulting think tank, said Iran was additionally smuggling and trying to manufacture a graphite-based substance called ceramic matrix composite. The highly heat resistance compound is also used in missile technology.

    He said he learned this from sources of information within Iran.

    The diplomat, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of his position, said Iran also may be interested in acquiring specially heat-resistant “nuclear-grade graphite” that can be used as moderators to slow down the fission process in reactors generating energy.

    While Iran does not now have reactors using such moderators, it insists it has the future right to all aspects of peaceful nuclear technology.

    Neither Jafarzadeh nor the diplomat could say how much graphite Iran had imported and over what period of time.

    But the diplomat said a graphite-moderated nuclear plant would require a “huge amount” of graphite – as many as 1,000 tons for a 250-megawatt reactor.

    Crucibles to hold molten uranium metal would need much less graphite – no more than about 2.2 pounds per nuclear weapon, the diplomat said. He said investigations by the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency revealed laboratory experiments by Iran aimed at making nuclear-grade graphite, which later were abandoned.

    Domestically manufactured Iranian conventional missiles would require dozens of pounds of graphite per missile cone, he said.

    Jafarzadeh also said a plant now being built near the central town of Ardekan for what Iranian officials say is steel manufacturing will actually be a cover for mastering graphite technology.

    The revelations came as Iran’s top nuclear negotiators prepared to meet early next week with the foreign ministers of France, Britain and Germany, acting on behalf of the 25-nation European Union, for what could be a last-ditch attempt to convince Tehran to agree to a long-term freeze of uranium enrichment activities.

    French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said Friday the talks were “very fragile.” He said the talks range over issues including economic, technical and commercial cooperation, Iran’s wish to join the World Trade Organization, and political dialogue.

    The United States wants U.N. Security Council action against Iran for what it says are nuclear weapons ambitions, and the Europeans have threatened to support such U.S. calls if it resumes enrichment programs. Iran says those programs are needed to generate power, but Washington labels them as part of plans to make weapons-grade material.

  25. chris
    Posted May 20, 2005 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

    Aaaah, much better people! Keep up the good work!

  26. Ken
    Posted May 20, 2005 at 9:40 pm | Permalink

    Iranian mullahs are anti semitic? Doesn’t exactly sound like a news flash.

  27. john galt
    Posted May 20, 2005 at 9:43 pm | Permalink

    wait! I thought they represented the religion of peace… Thats what the TV says.

  28. Jim
    Posted May 21, 2005 at 12:12 am | Permalink

    The report on the Senate site for Bush has 50 nominated for Circuit Court, 30 confirmed, while Daly has 65 nominated, 35 confirmed. The difference may be that the Senate site does not cover all of Bush’s first term. But there are other differences too: e.g., Daly has 106 Clinton nominations, while the Senate site has 91.
    It doesn’t appear that either site has complete numbers for District Court for Bush’s first term. Can anyone supply those?

  29. Jim
    Posted May 21, 2005 at 12:30 am | Permalink

    The number 65 double-counts nominees Bush renominated. Daly writes: “In aggregate, President Bush has nominated, for the first time, 52 distinct individuals to be Circuit Court justices. 34 have been confirmed, for an aggregate eventual confirmation rate of 65%, 8% lower than President Clinton

  30. Jim
    Posted May 22, 2005 at 8:59 am | Permalink

    I haven’t found a clear explanation of the discrepancies in nomination and confirmation numbers, but it appears that one source of confusion is whether nominations still pending at the end of a Congress are counted. During Bush’s first term, Democrats filibustered 10 nominees, while confirming 204. From the ABA:

    “In the end [of the 108th Congress], 104 of President Bush’s 131 nominees were confirmed — 28 to the courts of appeals, 85 to the district courts and one to the Court of International Trade — and 23 nominations were pending. At the close of the 108th Congress, twenty-eight out of 875 Article III judgeships were vacant, producing a record-low vacancy rate, which had hovered around or below 4.0% since summer 2003.


    “In total, during the 107th and 108th Congress (President Bush

  31. john galt
    Posted May 22, 2005 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

    sadly Jim, the one’s who were tossing around that 95% number really don’t care about the facts, bush could have 0 confirmed and they would still feel the same way. As far as the other posters on this site are concerned, Bush can do nothing correctly… I guess people need an enemy.

    Of course if Bush were a Dem, just imagine all the wailing and gnashing of teeth we’d hear from them about how republicans are derailing democracy and how the evil neo-cons won’t let the people vote.. etc.. We’d probably even get sharpton or Jesse telling the media that the whole filibuster was a ploy to keep blacks from being confirmed… etc.. This would of course get favorable coverage in the media…

  32. mark
    Posted May 22, 2005 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    You’re right, it’s not like Bush did something truly terrible, like threaten our Democracy by placing his cock into an intern’s mouth (which clearly demands impeachment).

  33. Jim
    Posted May 22, 2005 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

    Actually, John, I just presented the factual basis for the 95% number (204 nominees confirmed v. 10 filibustered). Do you accept these numbers?

  34. mark
    Posted May 22, 2005 at 1:45 pm | Permalink


  35. mark
    Posted May 22, 2005 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    What’s that?

  36. mark
    Posted May 23, 2005 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

    We’re still waiting.

  37. john galt
    Posted May 24, 2005 at 8:04 am | Permalink

    Sorry Mark, your lucid comment about cock in mouth distracted me (you’re usually so fascinated with anal).. I will try to follow your example and stay on topic in the future.

    Nope don’t accept the 95% number, accept the 6~% number..

  38. Jim
    Posted May 24, 2005 at 11:17 am | Permalink

    Umm, you don’t accept the number 204, or the number 10, or the claim that 204/(204+10)=95%?

    As best I can tell, the “6~% number” is arrived at:
    1. By counting only Circuit Court nominees, not District Court nominees.
    2. By counting nominations that were still in process at the end of a session.

    There is some rationale for the first procedure, but the other seems illegitimate and misleading. The debate has been over the alleged abuse of the filibuster, and the Democrats have filibustered only 10 nominees. If you think that the Democrats are responsible for other excessive delays in the confirmation process, please present your evidence.

  39. Tony Buttons
    Posted May 24, 2005 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    Thank you for taking up the cause of debating with this person, Jim. You’ve done an admirable job and your efforts are appreciated by everyone just sitting out here, watching quietly, not wanting to engage the troll in debate.

  40. john galt
    Posted May 24, 2005 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

    just a cross post…

    U.S. Constitution was written to establish a general presumption of majority rule for congressional decision-making. The historical reasons for this are clear. A major defect with the Constitution

  41. john galt
    Posted May 24, 2005 at 8:00 pm | Permalink

    dare I cross-post again?? I’m gonna delete the tabular data this time, since Mark’s site cant format it correctly.

    Senate Is to Advise And Consent, Not Obstruct and Delay
    The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence ^ | September 6, 2002 | John C. Eastman and Timothy Sandefur

    Posted on 01/08/2003 12:40:10 PM PST by Remedy

    This artice appeared in the June 6, 2002 edition of Nexus.

    Over a year after President Bush nominated his first group of circuit court judges, only two have been confirmed. Most have not even received a hearing, yet the number of vacancies on the federal bench has grown to crisis proportion. Chief Justice William Rehnquist recently complained of an “alarming number of judicial vacancies,” creating a real strain on the courts.1 Even Senator Patrick Leahy, who, as Chairman of the Senate’s judiciary committee is largely responsible for the current logjam, previously referred to a judicial vacancy “crisis” when the number of vacancies on the bench was about half what it is today, contending that those who delay or prevent the filling of vacancies were “derelict[ in their] duty,” and delaying or preventing the administration of justice.2

    More fundamentally, the judicial vacancy crisis is threatening to hamper the ability of the courts to perform their primary role as an important check on the elected branches of government, protecting individual rights against tyrannical majorities, and insuring that the legislative and executive branches do not exceed the scope of authority delegated to them by the Constitution. As James Madison noted two years before the Constitutional Convention, the “Judiciary Department merits every care” because it “maintains private Right against all the corruptions of the two other departments….”3

    Of course, Senator Leahy and his Democrat colleagues in the Senate claim that they are simply fulfilling their own constitutional obligation to give “advice and consent” to the President in the nomination process and to insure that those nominees who are “hostile” to their view of what the law ought to be are not confirmed to lifelong seats on the bench. The resulting standoff reveals important differences of opinion over the role of the Senate in the appointment process. But that disagreement in turn masks a profound division over the proper role of government in general, and even the very notion of the rule of law. As is often the case, it is well to begin with a review of the founders’ understanding of the process in assessing this disagreement.

    I. The Framers of the Constitution Assigned to the President the Pre-Eminent Role in Appointing Judges.

    A. The President Alone Has The Power to Nominate

    Article II of the Constitution provides that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the supreme Court [and such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish].”4 As the text of the provision makes explicitly clear, the power to choose nominees

  42. Ken
    Posted May 24, 2005 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

    Mark, can you PLEASE make this site more accessible to cut and paste formatting issues. It is very hard on the eye. Perhaps you can even allow tables that can be different colors.

  43. john galt
    Posted May 24, 2005 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

    yes Mark, I agree, your posts from George Soros (moveon.pac) would be much more readable.

  44. john galt
    Posted May 24, 2005 at 8:21 pm | Permalink


    I removed the offending table from the above post. I thought it might confuse you again. I did leave in all the sources for you to debate. Funny that you guys love linking to communist sites but if anyone posts from a non-commie site you have a fit.

  45. john galt
    Posted May 24, 2005 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

    here;s an example of mark cut and pasting… this is of course acceptable. If I do it it’s wrong. If you guys don’t want me to do research and make cogent posts, then maybe you should refrain from referencing outside sources as well.. Of course the result of that would just be a bunch of “bush suxx0rs” posts from Mark and his facist friends.

    ording to the New York Times, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is

  46. john galt
    Posted May 24, 2005 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

    here’s another example of a perfect (original) post by Mark


  47. chris
    Posted May 24, 2005 at 8:33 pm | Permalink

    I know this is essentially feeding you, but I can’t help myself. You have made the rare blog metamorphosis, that from troll to spam.

  48. john galt
    Posted May 24, 2005 at 8:39 pm | Permalink

    you just can’t handle the truth. I’m not trolling, just posting referenced facts. If posting the truth is trolling to you, then I am sorry. If you want to argue points I’ll do it, but the majority of posters on this site label me a troll, even though I source all my posts and invite intelligent debate. There’s just not a lot of that forthcomming from the loyal readers. Its ok though chris, I don’t mind the ad-hominem attacks.. I just wish you guys would think for yourselves.

  49. chris
    Posted May 24, 2005 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

    Fine, but aren’t you a little long in the truth? Get it? Ha-Ha…long in truth!

  50. john galt
    Posted May 24, 2005 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

    dont understand that… Maybe you should cut and paste (I’m sure mark would approve in your case)

  51. Posted May 24, 2005 at 9:16 pm | Permalink

    Long in the tooth. Like an old horse destined for the glue factory. Your teeth are so crooked you can’t even pronounce your r’s to say the Truth.

  52. mark
    Posted May 24, 2005 at 9:40 pm | Permalink

    You’ve boxed me into a corner and I have no idea how to respond. You’ve beaten me with your superior handling of the facts, and I’m utterly destroyed. I’ll be changing the name of the site to JohnGalt.com first thing in the morning.

  53. john galt
    Posted May 24, 2005 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

    if you do that I’ll go away

  54. mark
    Posted May 24, 2005 at 10:17 pm | Permalink

    Hmmmm…. a real live Catch 22.

  55. Posted May 25, 2005 at 12:16 am | Permalink

    john galt can’t hide from the men watching.

  56. mark
    Posted May 25, 2005 at 8:18 pm | Permalink

    Amen, my orgone accumulating brother.

  57. john galt
    Posted May 25, 2005 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

    I happen to have a much larger orgone generator outside my house. I can’t stand reptoids. (reptoids are killed by orgone). My house sits on granite and I’ve been worried that they’ll burrow through it and convert me.. Thank got for cattle dogs, they hate the reptoids almost as much as me.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative Bat Attack