IT'S FRIDAY AND PETA STILL SUCKS
On a lighter note. PeTA has just put out an ad that says "Get Neutered—It Didn’t Hurt Clay Aiken". So much for the ethical treatment of humans.

And remember, PeTA means, "People Eating Tasty Animals."

I need some ribs.

FILIBUSTERED
The Democrats succeeded in preventing a vote on the judicial nominees (despite CNN's spin, "A vote, finally"). For days, the Republicans have argued that the filibuster was an unconstitutional usurpation of the majority will of the Senate, and, by extension, the American people who put those particular 100 Senators in office.

If the Republicans truly believe their argument, they must now eliminate the rule that the Democrats exploited to undermine the Constitution. They can do this on a majority vote and involving the Supreme Court is just a way to avoid making the hard decisions themsevles.

If they don't change the rules, they'll prove themselves to be as unprincipled as their good friends across the aisle.

SANTORUM: I'M AN IDIOT
Apparently, Santorum is on the Senate floor telling the Democrats that if they don't give up on the filibuster, then when the President is a Democrat, the Republicans will filibuster all liberal judges.

Forget how stupid this is from a political perspective and how the Democrats and the press are likely to grab hold of this and shout "it's all politics as usual."

It's dishonest, shows a lack of integrity and is hypocritical. And even as an empty threat (if that's what it is), it's breathtakingly stupid. If it is unconstitutional and wrong now for the Democrats to do it, why would it be OK for Republicans to do it in the future? Can't someone please take the high road?

Or otherwise fix the Senate rules that lead to this unconstitutionality, i.e., go nuclear.

DASCHLE: FILIBUSTERS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Yep, Tom Daschle said it. And Joe Lieberman and Tom Harkin, too. Here are their own words. From Tom Daschle, Jan. 30, 1995:

the Constitution is straightforward about the few instances in which more than a majority of the Congress must vote: A veto override, a treaty, and a finding of guilt in an impeachment proceeding. Every other action by the Congress is taken by majority vote. The Founders debated the idea of requiring more than a majority . . . . They concluded that putting such immense power into the hands of a minority ran squarely against the democratic principle. Democracy means majority rule, not minority gridlock.

Joe Lieberman, January 4-5, 1995:

the filibuster rule . . . there is no constitutional basis for it. . . . it is, in its way, inconsistent with the Constitution, one might almost say an amendment of the Constitution by rule of the U.S. Senate. The Constitution states only five specific cases in which there is a requirement for more than a majority to work the will of this body: Ratification of a treaty, override of a Presidential veto, impeachment, adoption of a constitutional amendment, and expulsion of a Member of Congress. In fact, the Framers of the Constitution considered other cases in which a supermajority might have been required and rejected them. And we by our rules have effectively amended the Constitution--which I believe, respectfully, is not right--and added the opportunity of any Member or a minority of Members to require 60 votes.

Better examples of hypocrisy, I have not seen. Shouldn't the press be asking Mr. Daschle about this?

DEAR SENATOR EDWARDS
My letter to Senator Edwards this morning (is he even at the Senate?):

Dear Senator Edwards:

I urge you to vote to end debate on the judicial nominations before the Senate and to allow the Senate to proceed to a vote. I am not asking you to vote in favor of the nominations, but to vote your conscience. The mantra from 2000 that every vote should count goes equally for the Senate of the United States, and a vote should be taken and counted.

I understand that argument that 63 of President Clinton's nominees were "blocked", although I don't believe any of these would have been confirmed if a vote were taken. But I will urge my Republican friends in the future, when a Democrat is nominating judges, to bring all nominations to the floor for vote.

I hope you will set the example from which you might benefit in 2005.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Yes, I do believe that he has a chance to win the election.

DEMOCRATS ARE NAZIS
Schumer and Corzine are highlighting one statement by Justice Brown from one speech. This appears to be their main argument against Justice Brown.

"Where government advances relentlessly, freedom is in peril." Of course, they usually read the line without the word "relentlessly." Oooh, and Corzine just did it again. Here's a clue. From 1933 to 1938, government advanced relentlessly in Germany, and as a direct result, freedom was lost. But this thought is so scandalous, that Democrats want to burn the Constitution - and no doubt any book it is written in.

That sounds like a relentless advance.

And no, Democrats are not Nazis, but I'm exercising the same level of debating honesty that the Democrats are. Politics is too dishonest, and it will lead to the end of democracy. How long from now, who can say?

SCHUMER'S A MATHEMATICAL GENIUS
"Do you know what answers all of that hyperbolic verbosity? 168-4." Well, that's what Schumer has to say about why he is opposing the judges. Very impressive, Chucky.

Just to put a face on this, here's one of the Judges, who won more votes from Californians than her fellow California Supreme Court justices.



California loves her, but to Schumer and the Democrats, she is "out of the mainstream." I guess Californians are too -- especially since they started supporting the occasional Republican. And he says it's because of her opinions, in which she said that she doesn't like kleptocracy and she found some zoning rule somewhere to be analogous to government theft. Sounds like Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992). Or because she thinks that community and family are more important for protecting values than some bureaucratic, centralized and impersonable government. Sounds like It Takes a Village (1996).

This is all they can find to defame Justice Brown? The Democrats have no shame.

And now, John Corzine is showing is firm grasp of legal issues, summed up by his statement, "I don't know, I'm not a lawyer". There's a good sign that you shouldn't even attempt to analyze legal reasoning.

COUNT THE FREAKIN' VOTES
Well, that's what they kept saying about Florida, even though they really meant "try to read the minds of people too stupid to stick a stylus through a hole, and make sure their mind says GORE".

Now, we can count the votes -- all the judges being filibustered will, without doubt, be approved by a majority vote of the Senate, as Constitutionally required. But the Democrats won't let the votes be cast.

I spent a few minutes tonight watching the measured and reasoned Senators Hatch and Hutchison, and the horribly shrill Senator Landrieu. Hatch and Hutch complained that the Democrats had no substantive argument against any of the nominees. Landrieu argued that they were only filibustering 4 or 2% of Bush's nominees (no mention of Estrada). Her argument, I guess, is that it's OK to frustrate the will of the majority, to deny a vote, to ensure that the Senate that the American people elected cannot express their will through a vote, to violate the spirit and letter of the Constitution -- if it's only done 2% of the time. Maybe we could ban 2% of abortions.

Then, Landrieu's other substantive argument. THEY BLOCKED 63 OF CLINTON'S NOMINEES. Assuming her number is right and that 63 nominees were "blocked" - an incorrect assumption, by the way, because Democrats are either stupid or dishonest -- none, NOT ONE of those 63 would have been approved by the Senate if a vote were taken. The alleged "blocking" made no substantive different in the composition of the courts. In fact, one of Clinton's nominees was blocked be cloture failure -- BY DEMOCRATS.

Hypocrits. Children. A national party no more.

JUSTICE FOR JUDGES, JOBLESS
And so the filibuster continues. It could easily be stopped by supporting a cloture vote, which is a vote to end debate, but the Democrats keep voting against ending debate. Yet, they blame the Republicans. "Thirty hours on judges?" said Ted Kennedy. "There are 13 million hungry children in America tonight but Republicans don't have time to debate that." Fine, Ted, then vote for cloture.

The good thing about this filibuster is that it forces the Democrats to follow the full process for blocking a Senate vote on judges they don't like. And more importantly, it forces them to chose. Do they hold up all Senate business because of the importance of what they want to block? A mere threat should not be enough - the only way to truly measure the importance of the issue to the minority, is to force them to carry out the filibuster. The Republicans are following the proper procedure - finally.

Now, the Democrats have to decide whether defeating these judges is more important than other Senate business. They apparently think it is. That's their choice. If they really want to address the appropriations bill or the economy, they merely have to vote to end the debate and have a vote on the judges. But they've chosen political games.

Now get back to work.

POST-WAR
Losing the peace, old school.

DEGENERATE RIGHT WING REPUG
I have reread my fax of talking points from HQ-VRWC, cross-referenced it with my daily marching orders from the Bilderburg Group and indexed it to the 5 year plan of the Trilateral Commission, and they say nothing about the Horst Wessel Song. I guess I should reread them or check my voice mail from Karl Rove.

Anyway, DU responds to the post below. I like LeahMira's best.

I'd imagine John Edwards wouldn't even mind if a few Republicans voted for him.

What's this with "pure votes?" I know the right accuses us of "elitism" but that elite? Get real.

So tell me... does Bush want votes from atheists? Or will he graciously decline those and accept only votes from Christians and Jews?

But, will the Democrats allow Dean to campaign for all voters, or only "pure" voters? I suspect that LeahMira is consistent on this, but I can't search DU to find out. I was "tombstoned" some time ago while trying very hard to have a civilized discussion on DU (and not disrupt). And I had some success and remember some guy called "Elan" engaging in a thought-provoking manner. "Judge Edge" would be glad to return if the administrators would allow. I'll be civil, I promise.

DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND AND JOHN EDWARDS
See Update below
Andrew Sullivan has made sport of the "far lefties" at Democratic Underground lately. Andrew understands that DU is "not representative of the left as a whole. But the fact that it exists at all," he says, "shows how alienated some parts of the United States now are." We at Federal Review provide a link to Democratic Underground because, once you sift through the fecal matter, there is some reasonable discussion and argument on that site, albeit from a left-wing perspective, and we don't want Federal Review readers to merely bounce around in the right's internet echo chamber. That's why we also link to left-of-center The New Republic and far-left-of-center The Nation. Clearly, our links aren't endorsements of the views offered on the listed sites.

But can you say the same about a candidate for President? John Edwards links only 30 sites on his blog. Among these are those offering reasoned analysis of political issues, such as Lawrence Lessig's blog, or sites by people close to the campaign such as the Stinging Nettle. But he also links Democratic Underground. Now, I'm not saying that a mere link means that Edwards supports everything written on these sites, but it is reasonable to assume that he agrees with the overall tone and sentiment of the site, and Democratic Underground is driven by anger and hate more than by the occasional reasoned analysis of a few of its posters. A sampling of the offerings:

President Bush has "demonstrated an intense, all-encompassing, and lethal contempt for human life over the past several years"

Implications that President Bush had someone murdered.

And the biggie, that Andrew Sullivan highlighted, causing the DU administrators to pull it:

I Hope the Bloodshed Continues in Iraq. Well, that should bring the bats out of the attic with fangs dripping. . . . Well, there is more than one way to be "dead" for your country. They are not only not accomplishing squat in Iraq, they are doing nothing for the safety, defense of the US of A over there directly. But "indirectly" they are doing a lot. The only way to get rid of this slime bag WASP-Mafia, oil baron ridden cartel of a government, this assault on Americans and anything one could laughingly call "a democracy", relies heavily on what a hole Iraq turns into. They need to die so that we can be free.

Now I'm sure that John Edwards doesn't support such talk, and to be fair, he does say, above his listing of links, "Visit these blogs and spread the word about why you support John Edwards." But does that mean that he wants the votes of people who want the United States to fail in Iraq and our troops to die? Does he want the votes of people who think that Bush is a murderer? Or that Bush sends commandos after George Soros? Or that U.S. troops intentionally target civilians. I'm just asking. After all, Dean merely wanted southerners to vote for him, and inartfully articulated that desire by stereotyping the South. No reasonable person thought he wanted bigots on his side. Does John Edwards want these hate-mongers on his?

UPDATE: Carl comments as follows: As a frequenter of Democratic Underground, I can say these quotes are representative of .001% of the opinion represented (there is in fact an enormous amount of support for troops in Iraq). The suggestions that this 'fecal matter' is representative of DU or that Edwards should pull his link based on one or two posters' comments are absurd.

I've spent time reading DU and find much more than .001% of the commentary to be absurd. I will acknowledge, however, a growing maturity in the analysis in DU's columns and it's Top Ten Conservative Idiots and recommend anyone who is curious spend some time browsing DU.

DEMOCRATS DO HAVE AN IRAQ PLAN
According to Rep. Charles Rangel:

Step 1: Fire Donald Rumsfeld
Step 2: Surrender

Truly inspiring, Chuck. Now get back to work.

BOTCHED OCCUPATION
From "How We Botched the Iraq Occupation":

Everywhere I've traveled recently in Iraq I've run into Americans, ranging from generals down to privates, who ask perplexedly, 'What are we Americans supposed to be doing here? Are we going to take over this place and stay here forever?'
. . .
We have got into this Iraq job without understanding what we were tackling or why. Not one American political leader fully realized at the outset how formidable our Iraq commitments would prove to be. There was no idea, at the beginning, that Americans would become involved in a project to take Iraq completely apart and put it together again in wholly new patterns.

From "Americans are Losing the Victory in Iraq":

Never has American prestige in Europe been lower. . . . All we have brought to Iraq so far is confusion backed up by a drumhead regime of military courts. We have swept away the Ba'ath Party, but a great many Iraqis feel that the cure has been worse than the disease.

Actually, I changed the words. See the original in this Jeff Jacoby column. These are from 1946 and showed the same enlightened, intelligent, forward-looking thinking regarding post-war occupation work that the Democrats and the press are demonstrating today. That Germany thing worked out fine, perhaps it's a little too early to expect a robust republic to spring from the Mesopotamian ruins. Heck, it took America from 1775 to 1789 to get our republic going, and we weren't nostalgic for 7th century culture.