Pelosi to gag repulicans

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Is it time to clap plastic flip flops above my head or should I wait for a cue card?

Better wait for your cue card.

Gotcha

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Is it time to clap plastic flip flops above my head or should I wait for a cue card?

[GaryC 7]

If this is true, the war between the political Parties has just gone nuclear:

After losing a string of embarrassing votes on the House floor because of procedural maneuvering, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has decided to change the current House Rules to completely shut down the floor to the minority.

The Democratic Leadership is threatening to change the current House Rules regarding the Republican right to the Motion to Recommit or the test of germaneness on the motion to recommit. This would be the first change to the germaneness rule since 1822.

In protest, the House Republicans are going to call procedural motions every half hour.

Under the Republican changes to the rules of the House incorporated at the beginning of the 104th Congress, the Rules Committee may not report a special rule that denies a motion to recommit with instructions if offered by the Minority Leader or his designee (Rule XI, clause 4(B))

So...as I understand it, Gary, if the Republican 104th Congress can change the rules, then the Democratic Congress can change them also, yes?

The change you quote there still gives the minority a voice in the changes. The change that Pelosi wanted would have shut the Reps out all together. Apples and oranges Steve.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If this is true, the war between the political Parties has just gone nuclear:

After losing a string of embarrassing votes on the House floor because of procedural maneuvering, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has decided to change the current House Rules to completely shut down the floor to the minority.

The Democratic Leadership is threatening to change the current House Rules regarding the Republican right to the Motion to Recommit or the test of germaneness on the motion to recommit. This would be the first change to the germaneness rule since 1822.

In protest, the House Republicans are going to call procedural motions every half hour.

Under the Republican changes to the rules of the House incorporated at the beginning of the 104th Congress, the Rules Committee may not report a special rule that denies a motion to recommit with instructions if offered by the Minority Leader or his designee (Rule XI, clause 4(B))

So...as I understand it, Gary, if the Republican 104th Congress can change the rules, then the Democratic Congress can change them also, yes?

The change you quote there still gives the minority a voice in the changes. The change that Pelosi wanted would have shut the Reps out all together. Apples and oranges Steve.

I'm clueless about the processes and procedures for introducing a bill in congress, but it seems to me that it is the same - it was the Republican Congress (the majority) who changed the rules. Why would they have changed the rules at that time to give more teeth to the minority (Democrats)?

Edited May 17, 2007 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Gary - I'd be a little more convinced of your convictions on this issue if you'd actually call out the Reps from time to time for doing similar things.

[GaryC 7]

If this is true, the war between the political Parties has just gone nuclear:

After losing a string of embarrassing votes on the House floor because of procedural maneuvering, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has decided to change the current House Rules to completely shut down the floor to the minority.

The Democratic Leadership is threatening to change the current House Rules regarding the Republican right to the Motion to Recommit or the test of germaneness on the motion to recommit. This would be the first change to the germaneness rule since 1822.

In protest, the House Republicans are going to call procedural motions every half hour.

Under the Republican changes to the rules of the House incorporated at the beginning of the 104th Congress, the Rules Committee may not report a special rule that denies a motion to recommit with instructions if offered by the Minority Leader or his designee (Rule XI, clause 4(B))

So...as I understand it, Gary, if the Republican 104th Congress can change the rules, then the Democratic Congress can change them also, yes?

The change you quote there still gives the minority a voice in the changes. The change that Pelosi wanted would have shut the Reps out all together. Apples and oranges Steve.

I'm clueless about the processes and procedures for introducing a bill in congress, but it seems to me that it is the same - it was the Republican Congress (the majority) who changed the rules. Why would they have changed the rules at that time to give more teeth to the minority (Democrats)?

I am no expert on the way congress runs things also but if I understand this correctly its like the difference between a slap and a kick to the nads. What Pelosi was trying to do was to shut out the minority all together.

Take this as an additional example:

Fairness Doctrine: Democrat Suicide

Contrast the points in the second graph:

According to two members of the House Democrat Caucus, Reps. Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer have informed them that they will "aggressively pursue" reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine over the next six months.

The decision to press for re-establishment of the Fairness Doctrine now seems to have developed for two reasons. "First, [Democrats] failed on the radio airwaves with Air America, no one wanted to listen," says a senior adviser to Pelosi. "Conservative radio is a huge threat and political advantage for Republicans and we have had to find a way to limit it.

They go on to cite a potential threat from Thompson, which makes no sense in relation to the fairness doctrine. Is the argument that there should be more liberal judges on evening entertainment shows? But the real problem for the Democrats on this is, they apparently are seeing only ideology and forgetting the numbers (ratings) causing one to succeed and another to fail.

Their idea is not likely to draw anymore support from the population than did the incredible failure that was Air America. Between the Fox debate drop out and this, they are making themselves look scared and incredibly weak. And America doesn't elect weak leadership, no matter the party affiliation. This will be another major headache for the Blue Dogs, few of whom will be able to sign on to this and escape the wrath of voters.

Second, it looks like the Republicans are going to have someone in the presidential race who has access to media in ways our folks don't want, so we want to make sure the GOP has no advantages going into 2008."

That last comment appeared to be a veiled reference to former Sen. Fred Thompson, who appears to be gearing up for a presidential run. Over the past year, he has built a following both over the AM airwaves through the ABC Radio network, as well as through almost daily appearances across cable TV on the TV show Law & Order, where he plays a tough-talking district attorney.

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_...ess_doctri.html

The dems want to shut out all opposition. Don't you see the difference?

[GaryC 7]

Gary - I'd be a little more convinced of your convictions on this issue if you'd actually call out the Reps from time to time for doing similar things.

Funny, I never see you or Steven calling out the Dems. Why should my convictions be questioned?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Gary - I'd be a little more convinced of your convictions on this issue if you'd actually call out the Reps from time to time for doing similar things.

Funny, I never see you or Steven calling out the Dems. Why should my convictions be questioned?

Well you posted the article, and you didn't respond to my previous post about similar Republican wrong-doings. Inconvenient truths?

[GaryC 7]

Gary - I'd be a little more convinced of your convictions on this issue if you'd actually call out the Reps from time to time for doing similar things.

Funny, I never see you or Steven calling out the Dems. Why should my convictions be questioned?

Well you posted the article, and you didn't respond to my previous post about similar Republican wrong-doings. Inconvenient truths?

Ok, The "wrongdoings" you say the Reps did are nothing compaired to this. The example you cited were about the judicial appointments. Bush had a whole raft of appointments that the dems were sitting on. They knew that they didn't have the votes to stop them so they fillibustered them. The dems used a procedural tactic to block a judge so the reps used another proceduaral tactic to get around them.

The others are minor rule changes compaired to this.

Not the same at all. Please try again.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Gary - I'd be a little more convinced of your convictions on this issue if you'd actually call out the Reps from time to time for doing similar things.

Funny, I never see you or Steven calling out the Dems. Why should my convictions be questioned?

Well you posted the article, and you didn't respond to my previous post about similar Republican wrong-doings. Inconvenient truths?

Ok, The "wrongdoings" you say the Reps did are nothing compaired to this. The example you cited were about the judicial appointments. Bush had a whole raft of appointments that the dems were sitting on. They knew that they didn't have the votes to stop them so they fillibustered them. The dems used a procedural tactic to block a judge so the reps used another proceduaral tactic to get around them.

The others are minor rule changes compaired to this.

Not the same at all. Please try again.

As usual you're making much more of things than there is. First off the article you posted (if indeed such a fragmentary piece can be called an "article") alludes to unspecified "threats" rather than definite plans or proposals. In that context I don't see how it is any different from Bill Frist et al "threatening" to do away with the filibuster because they don't like how the Democrats used rules of procedure to impede business. Nothing happened with that - and its just as likely that "threats" are as far as this will go.

If what Pelosi has allegedly "threatened" becomes (or looks like becoming) a reality then you'll have something to complain about, but until then writing off legislation that cuts the balls off of the House Ethics Committee (itself a long-standing institution) and the controversy over to what extent a President should be bound by the laws he signs are fairly relevant as I see it. And there's far more material out there on those than there is on this as yet unconfirmed and unsubstantiated accusation.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If this is true, the war between the political Parties has just gone nuclear:

After losing a string of embarrassing votes on the House floor because of procedural maneuvering, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has decided to change the current House Rules to completely shut down the floor to the minority.

The Democratic Leadership is threatening to change the current House Rules regarding the Republican right to the Motion to Recommit or the test of germaneness on the motion to recommit. This would be the first change to the germaneness rule since 1822.

In protest, the House Republicans are going to call procedural motions every half hour.

Under the Republican changes to the rules of the House incorporated at the beginning of the 104th Congress, the Rules Committee may not report a special rule that denies a motion to recommit with instructions if offered by the Minority Leader or his designee (Rule XI, clause 4(B))

So...as I understand it, Gary, if the Republican 104th Congress can change the rules, then the Democratic Congress can change them also, yes?

The change you quote there still gives the minority a voice in the changes. The change that Pelosi wanted would have shut the Reps out all together. Apples and oranges Steve.

I'm clueless about the processes and procedures for introducing a bill in congress, but it seems to me that it is the same - it was the Republican Congress (the majority) who changed the rules. Why would they have changed the rules at that time to give more teeth to the minority (Democrats)?

I am no expert on the way congress runs things also but if I understand this correctly its like the difference between a slap and a kick to the nads. What Pelosi was trying to do was to shut out the minority all together.

The dems want to shut out all opposition. Don't you see the difference?

I'm not sure because I really don't understand it enough, but what I do understand is that when the Republican controlled the House, they changed the rules. So the issue you have with them isn't really over wanting to change the rules, but to what extent? I'd be shocked if Pelosi really wants to squash democracy by silencing the minority, but if that is really what she intends on doing, I'll be right with you on condemning such an action. My hunch though is that this is nothing more than partisan bickering. When the Republicans controlled the House, they demanded that the Dems let the mandate of the people speak. While I don't agree with that notion, perhaps Pelosi is playing payback time.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Gary - I'd be a little more convinced of your convictions on this issue if you'd actually call out the Reps from time to time for doing similar things.

Funny, I never see you or Steven calling out the Dems. Why should my convictions be questioned?

Unlike me. I call them all out. Most recently I call out the Dems for being fcuking cowards for not working on impeaching the crook(s) in the White House.

Edited May 17, 2007 by ET-US2004

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Gary, here's a well written blog that dishes out the criticism where it is due...

(different subject but still in line with congressional powers)

The bankruptcy of the Democratic Party leadership’s position in Congress on impeachment was revealed in stark terms yesterday, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that she would sue the president in court if he resorted to a signing statement to kill the next version of Congress’s Iraq funding bill.

Suing Bush over a signing statement, given the number of Federalist judges that this administration has named to the federal district and appellate courts, and to the US Supreme Court, is not just an exercise in futility; it is a dangerous tactic which could backfire disastrously by leading to a ruling that it’s perfectly constitutional for a president to ignore laws passed by the Congress. Does Pelosi really want to risk such a catastrophe?

The only solution is to impeach the president over his signing statements, and there is no need to wait for the next one to take action. Bush has invalidated more than 1200 laws or parts of laws passed by Congress since 2001 using what are called “signing statements.”

Republican apologists for the president have noted that other presidents, including Clinton, also issued signing statements, which is true. But they fail to mention that other presidents did not use those signing statements to then ignore or invalidate laws passed by Congress. They merely used them to register their view that a law, or a part of a law, was unconstitutional.

Bush has made a wholly different argument. For the past six years, he has been claiming that because he is commander in chief in a time of war, by which he means the so-called “war” on terror, he has had what he calls “unitary executive” authority. By this he means that legislative and judicial power, as well as executive power, are all in his hands for as long as the threat of terrorism is with us. Since this “war” on terror never really ends, what he is claiming is that separation of powers no longer exists in America. Indeed, the Constitution itself is set aside. The president is a dictator during his term of office, and Congress is just a debating club.

At this point, it should be clear to anyone, including Speaker Pelosi, that the only remedy for this gross abuse of power by the president is impeachment.

http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/2007/05/...o-sue-bush.html

Edited May 17, 2007 by Steven_and_Jinky

[GaryC 7]

Gary, here's a well written blog that dishes out the criticism where it is due...

(different subject but still in line with congressional powers)

The bankruptcy of the Democratic Party leadership’s position in Congress on impeachment was revealed in stark terms yesterday, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that she would sue the president in court if he resorted to a signing statement to kill the next version of Congress’s Iraq funding bill.

Suing Bush over a signing statement, given the number of Federalist judges that this administration has named to the federal district and appellate courts, and to the US Supreme Court, is not just an exercise in futility; it is a dangerous tactic which could backfire disastrously by leading to a ruling that it’s perfectly constitutional for a president to ignore laws passed by the Congress. Does Pelosi really want to risk such a catastrophe?

The only solution is to impeach the president over his signing statements, and there is no need to wait for the next one to take action. Bush has invalidated more than 1200 laws or parts of laws passed by Congress since 2001 using what are called “signing statements.”

Republican apologists for the president have noted that other presidents, including Clinton, also issued signing statements, which is true. But they fail to mention that other presidents did not use those signing statements to then ignore or invalidate laws passed by Congress. They merely used them to register their view that a law, or a part of a law, was unconstitutional.

Bush has made a wholly different argument. For the past six years, he has been claiming that because he is commander in chief in a time of war, by which he means the so-called “war” on terror, he has had what he calls “unitary executive” authority. By this he means that legislative and judicial power, as well as executive power, are all in his hands for as long as the threat of terrorism is with us. Since this “war” on terror never really ends, what he is claiming is that separation of powers no longer exists in America. Indeed, the Constitution itself is set aside. The president is a dictator during his term of office, and Congress is just a debating club.

At this point, it should be clear to anyone, including Speaker Pelosi, that the only remedy for this gross abuse of power by the president is impeachment.

http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/2007/05/...o-sue-bush.html

Impeachment just isn't going to happen. Bush hasn't done anything that would warrent an impeachment. The howling over signing statements is just that, a lot of noise. Bush isn't doing anything different than any other president durring a time of war has done. In fact he has done less in terms of power grabbing compaired to FDR, Lincoln and any other war time president. It would be a exersize in futility.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Bush hasn't done anything that would warrent an impeachment.

No ####### for Mr. Bush.