The problem with losing elections

[theboss]

In pondering the Alito hearings, I have a question. Say, the Dems stop Alito. Then Bush nominates someone else. Odds are, it will be someone with Alito's philosophy. Say it happens again and Bush sends up another one.

Do the Democrats simply filibuster nominations until 2008? And what's to stop the Republicans from doing the same eventually? Could we simply force O'Conner to stay on the bench for the next three years as we hash this out?

Presidents get to appoint judges; that's one of the privileges of the office. And it's why losing elections is so bad. (This sentence now guarantees that this thread will be hijacked by a fraud/Diebold discussion).

My question is, what is the end game? Do we filibuster until Bush nominates a Ginsberg?

[robbedvoter]

1. Bush LOST TWICE - he shouldn't have the right to nominate

Just because you refuse to accept the reality of stolen elections, doesn't make your delusion stand.
Did I mention the 2002 elections were rigged as well? We did actually took the senate (Minnestota and Georgia for sure)

[stray cat]

3. A stolen election doesn' t mean Bush isn't in charge

Last I saw the republicans had control of all branches of government - thats reality.

[robbedvoter]

16. So does a banana republic tinplate dictator. Question is:

do we admit we live in a dictatorship or maintain the illusion of a democracy, with elections and laws? Cuz the course of action is different for each.

[theboss]

6. I'm not even discussing the elections

My question is, do we just filibuster until 2008?

[robbedvoter]

15. Hell, yeah. Or until they all get indicted - whichever comes first.

Still waiting for that one big fight, the one worth using your powder for?

[theboss]

17. No...I'm actually fine with a filibuster here

But I don't know if we can do it indefinitely.

[wixomblues]

7. What's your theory on 2004?

For fraud? The diebold one doesn't seem to have any merit.

[helderheid]

9. even though the final exit polls say Kerry won?

[robbedvoter]

13. Exactly - such as in this picture (Diebold states vs others)

[wixomblues]

21. Cool. Got a link robbed voter? I've been looking for something

like this.

[robbedvoter]

25. I can give you the link of the DU thread where it was posted first

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=11874&mesg_id=17986&page=
but the image is no longer supported. You can see the discussion that led to the making of this graph.
My jpg is obtained after scanning my demonstration poster (made after the DU graph). The color ink was done, so I did it with crayons...:-(
But if you can use it - feel free! It's based on the official numbers.

[helderheid]

28. this may also be of help

http://www.exitpollz.org/

[helderheid]

30. and this

http://www.exitpollz.org/indexver2.html

[wixomblues]

20. Right.....

but the pollster himself said the polls were taken from a samples in districts that voted largly for Kerry(you know, places with colleges and big buildings). Also, the fact that the Exit polls were wrong, in some areas, doesn't mean the election was stolen. It could mean that, but it also could mean that the polls were wrong....

There's a differenc between wanting to believe and actually knowing something. I've looked into this issue exaustively, and there are some discrepencies in this election; not nearly as extreme as in 2000, with the purge of "felons". But it also falls on both sides, and it's not uncommon with election years. Recall the tire slashing in Wisconsin? Not good.

But to claim the election was stolen, the most valid argument that comes to mind is the Diebold machines. And the sites that I've looked at have a lot of good stuff about the Diebold company being good old boy Republicans, but not enough about state statutes that goverrn voting procedures, the method of programming, and the breakdown of Bush and Kerry votes in Diebold precincts. That information should be the first thing you find when you look into this. But it doesn't correspond with the want to believe Diebold stole the election.

[robbedvoter]

29. You want to revisit those retractions? here's a doozie:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3987237.stm

Early exit polls quoted by media seemed to give Mr Kerry the edge, but colleagues said Mr Rove indicated right away that they did not tally with his information.

He used his own data to put Ohio and Florida in the Bush column - bringing cheers from the president and his family when he went into the Roosevelt Room and told them"



This is how it goes: you swallow one lie, you swallow them all. You accept an abuse, you have to justify them all. Good luck with that hole you're digging for yourself.

[eyesroll]

14. The Electoral College certified his votes. THAT's the election that counts

If you look closely at the Constitution, we don't actually have the right to vote directly for President. The Electoral College does. (And how the Electoral College is chosen is left to the states.)

The Electoral College voted for Bush. That, by definition, makes Bush President, whether or not he actually won or lost the popular (or state-by-state) vote. That's what gives him the right to nominate.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

31. I don't like it either. I know we were robbed in 2000 and 2004 BUT

He has been sworn in. Legally he is the president, even though he cheated to get there.

This means he works for us now... to bad there's not enough spine in congress to make him behave.

[robbedvoter]

32. he works for us? I'm sure it's news to him. That's exactly the point.

We accept the theft as legal, all the crimes stemming for it are also legal - not to me.
It's all a coup to me. Since 2000.

[eyesroll]

33. I am not defending the theft. But I am defending the law.

Whether we see that election as legitimate or not, BY LAW, George W. Bush is the president. Just because you don't want to acknowledge that doesn't make it different.

As such, he gets to nominate people to various positions.

We can oppose those people. We can petition our Senators to oppose those people. I suggest you do, in fact.

But he gets to make those nominations. And unless he's impeached, resigns, or dies, he'll continue to get to make these nominations. Sorry.

[Vincardog]

2. Neither side should nominate EXTREME judges. It stops when

the President nominates a judge in the MAINSTREAM of opinion not Wing Nuts of either side.

[seabeyond]

8. bush doesnt play by the rules. we knew he wouldnt

what.....

[theboss]

10. Scalia was extreme

Frankly, in many ways, Ginsberg was as far to the left as a judge could go.

And both were confirmed easily.

Bork is the one instance where someone was truly outside the mainstream, and that's largely because Bork appears to be completely insane.

[bullimiami]

4. the whole point of advice and consent is that the nominee needs to be

someone that the current senate can agree on.

clinton nominated those closest to his philosophy that would also pass the republican senate.
thats how it is supposed to work, not intimidate and bully the senate to take your idealogue.

[seabeyond]

5. right there with you boss

this is what the american people get for voting for the man. why so many told everyone to think about the supreme court. why it was sooooo important to vote kerry. said it over and over and over. every woman i know that was voting for bush i told them i felt they were betraying women. they disgusted me, that they would allow the courts to fall into the hands of white male

[stillcool]

11. "First, ..do no harm"....

is my thinking...and in order to succeed at that, someone needs to stop the unqualified cronies being appointed to every office possible throughout this government. When it comes to the Supreme Court...and the usurping of the Constitution and Congress...that is the end game.

[theboss]

12. So, we just never approve a Justice while Bush is in office

This seems like a difficult position to maintain for three more years. And a dangerous path to tread.

[Vincardog]

19. aWoL does not have to be in office for three more years

But if he is that may be the price we have to pay. Better that than allowing the rush to a fascist state, We have to act now to end the POLICE STATE

[stillcool]

23. The far more dangerous path...

is the one minus the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

[Pithy Cherub]

18. Presidents nominate. After advice and consent,

the senate confirms or denies or holds/filibusters the nomination. The president is not an imperial power to say because he/she is the head of state what they say goes without the co-equal branches of government. Executive power does not necessarily mean for the common good. To state that the president *appoints* displays a lack of civics knowledge and understanding as it relates to American democracy.

[savemefromdumbya]

22. ask Sandra to stay on

who is going to ask her?

[madinmaryland]

24. How can we hold out for three years?

Especially, after a couple it might give the impression that the Dem's are holding up everything and cause us to not take back either house and actually lose more seats. It might push us into a positions where the repubs can gain a filibuster proof senate.

:scared:

[SomewhereOutThere424]

27. until 2008, or

People keep whistle blowing on the republicans and there's ultimately no one left in the bush administration to screw around with: the environment, poor people, medical health care, foreign relations, war, pensions, taxes, etc.