• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Steve Sibson gives us a glimpse of Kennedy's anti-gun email

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
4
Location
northwestern South Dakota
Anti-gun group behind filibuster

In Mark Levin’s book, "Men in Black", he points out that far-left special interests groups are behind the effort to stop conservative appointments to the bench. Yesterday I received an email from the anti-Second Amendment Brady Campaign that contained this message form Ted Kennedy urging the obstruction of the William Myers nomination:

Dear StopTheNRA Member,

My good friends at StoptheNRA.com have kindly agreed to send this email to allow me to reach out to you and ask for your help in defeating extremist judicial nominees who will align themselves with the NRA's all-out campaign to gut sensible efforts to prevent escalating gun violence.

A poisonous right wing infection has gotten hold of the US Senate. They've got a narrow Senate majority that's not enough to get their extremist judges on the courts. So they're scheming to change the fundamental Senate rules, silence the minority, and get their judges approved. It's an assault on the Constitution and the whole system of checks and balances that makes our democracy work.

This unprecedented scheme will reach a crisis in the coming days. The focal point may be William Myers, a nominee rejected last year who's been nominated again. He'll be the test vote on this far-out power grab.

I'll say no on William Myers -- and no to the poisonous abuse of power right- wingers are trying to foist on the Senate. Please say it with me

The vast, vast majority of President Bush's nominees -- over 95 percent -- have been confirmed by the Senate for the federal courts. But the Senate refused to confirm a handful of them who are too extreme to swallow - the worst of the worst, the very bottom of the right-wing barrel.

Bush has nominated Myers for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals – the largest federal court of appeals, and a potential stepping stone to the Supreme Court. It also has jurisdiction over vast expanses of public land and priceless natural resources -- which makes a person like Myers especially unfit to serve.

He's spent his career trying to dismantle the legal protections our courts exist to protect. As a lobbyist for mining interests, he was handpicked by President Bush to regulate that industry. His only experience has been manipulating laws and regulations for corporate gain, against the public interest.

Myers and the other rejected nominees make up a band of corporate facilitators and right-wing crusaders who don't deserve lifetime power to shape laws that govern us. We have to say no.

On the merits, there is simply no case for why William Myers should be confirmed.

Fortunately, the Constitution and two hundred years of Senate history give a minority of Senators like Democrats are today the right to say no to irresponsible nominees like Myers.

But the majority leaders in Congress won't take the Constitution for an answer. They want to change the basic long-standing Senate rules, silence the minority, and force Myers to the federal court for life.

I need your help. If we all stand together, we can stop this madness. Please - say no to Myers now.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Senator Edward M. Kennedy
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Fortunately, the Constitution and two hundred years of Senate history give a minority of Senators like Democrats are today the right to say no

Could some liberal or democrat show me on which line this was inserted into the Constitution?

If not then why are the Leading Democrats lieing to the American Public...

"As Professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Catherine Fisk have noted in an elegant law review article, in seven instances, the Constitution requires the use of supermajority rules by one or both houses of Congress. But the filibuster rule is not among them."

"Thus, the Constitution's drafters plainly knew how to impose a supermajority rule when they wanted to. They didn't, however, impose the supermajority requirement for ending debate in the Senate."

"Meanwhile, the Constitution explicitly authorizes "each house" of Congress (that is, the House and the Senate) to "determine the Rules of its Proceedings" - which would seem to leave the Senate's rules up to the Senate, not the Constitution itself."

"Yes, the Constitution permits the Senate to set its own rules. But that is hardly a blank check entitling the Senate to amend the Appointments Clause by raising the confirmation bar from simple majority to super majority, to aggrandize power by upsetting the balance between the congressional and the executive branches, and to threaten the independence of the third branch, the federal judiciary. The conclusion is inescapable. Whenever Senate Democrats, a minority of the body, filibuster judicial nominations, obstruct an up or down vote, and deny the majority its right to consent to the appointments, they subvert the Constitution."

Maybe Senator Kennedy should pull his head out of his (@$$) long enough to read the Constitution? or at least look at it with a bit of sobriety?
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Steve said:
Fortunately, the Constitution and two hundred years of Senate history give a minority of Senators like Democrats are today the right to say no

Could some liberal or democrat show me on which line this was inserted into the Constitution?

If not then why are the Leading Democrats lieing to the American Public...

"As Professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Catherine Fisk have noted in an elegant law review article, in seven instances, the Constitution requires the use of supermajority rules by one or both houses of Congress. But the filibuster rule is not among them."

"Thus, the Constitution's drafters plainly knew how to impose a supermajority rule when they wanted to. They didn't, however, impose the supermajority requirement for ending debate in the Senate."

"Meanwhile, the Constitution explicitly authorizes "each house" of Congress (that is, the House and the Senate) to "determine the Rules of its Proceedings" - which would seem to leave the Senate's rules up to the Senate, not the Constitution itself."

"Yes, the Constitution permits the Senate to set its own rules. But that is hardly a blank check entitling the Senate to amend the Appointments Clause by raising the confirmation bar from simple majority to super majority, to aggrandize power by upsetting the balance between the congressional and the executive branches, and to threaten the independence of the third branch, the federal judiciary. The conclusion is inescapable. Whenever Senate Democrats, a minority of the body, filibuster judicial nominations, obstruct an up or down vote, and deny the majority its right to consent to the appointments, they subvert the Constitution."

Maybe Senator Kennedy should pull his head out of his (not nice) long enough to read the Constitution? or at least look at it with a bit of sobriety?

Thanks for an excellent and well-founded rebuttal.
 

Latest posts

Top