Posts Tagged ‘Senate’

The Supreme Court Nominee and Hypocrites

Posted by Troy on 1st February 2017 in Current Events, Political

So I get to see Chuck Shumer talking about how the Supreme Court is too important not to have bipartisan support.  Gee…like the overhaul of our medical system (ie, 18% of our economy)?  I also remember how Democrats raged at Republicans being “obstructionists.”  I remember Obama constantly trashing Fox News and talk radio.  I see them foaming at the mouths because they can’t filibuster the cabinet seats (thank Harry Reid) and railing about using the nuclear option for the Supreme Court.  Hey…guys…MAD.  Mutually Assured Destruction.  That is the deterrent from using nukes.  Maybe you should have contemplated MAD when you invoked something EVEN YOU called “the nuclear option.”  Once someone pulls a nuke, the other is going to pull a nuke.  It’s WHY YOU DON’T PULL A NUKE!!!!!  Please write this down.  If you have trouble understanding it, I want you to read and re-read that over and over so that you might understand.

That being said, Republicans are being a little hypocritical at this juncture.  While the Democrats have taking “obstruction” to the point of absolute lunacy (and it’s backfiring as they look more and more foolish…learn to pick your battles, seriously), Republicans demanding a straight up and down vote on the Supreme Court nominee is laughable.  While they did follow prior tradition of not approving a nominee in an election year, it is very clear that they exercised their discretion and their power to do so.  If the Democrats were in charge of the Senate, they could have confirmed someone virtually overnight.  The reason for this is because the Democrats are unable to come up with a platform that the vast swath of States can get behind (otherwise, they would AMEND THE CONSTITUTION).  Instead, they rely on activist judges to do their bidding.  Why pass laws and take the heat?  Why go to all the trouble of actually AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION when you can have the Supreme Court just tell us that the Constitution suddenly changed!  The Senate never has to approve a new judge.  It’s part of the checks and balances system.  ”But that undermines the Supreme Court!  We need nine justices!”  No, we don’t.  We started out only having six (an even number).  Not having an odd number means nothing.  All it means is you might have a tie (which happens from time to time even with an odd number).  In this case, the lower court’s ruling stands.  If the people don’t like it, they will vote their Senator out and replace him.  Example: You have Democratic President and a Republican Senate.  The people believe that if a Democrat places a justice on the Supreme Court they will undo the 2nd Amendment.  As such, they continually put in Republican Senators that never appoint the Democratic appointee.  Is it distasteful?  Possibly, but you do see how this becomes a check and balance.  It is possible that a party may obtain an electoral majority while possibly having vast opposition from the majority of states.

So do I want the Republicans to enact the nuclear option?

No.  First, I’d like to go back to having NO CLOTURE.  As mentioned above, pulling nukes lead to more nukes.  This is super early in Trump’s Presidency.  There are 38 Democrats.  The longest filibuster was 24 hours and 18 minutes set by Strom Thurman.  Say what you will…he was old school.  I doubt any of these whimps could last more than 20 hours.  So that means that the absolute longest they could hold out would be 38 days.  So, let’s do this.  ”Okay, filibuster.  While you are talking, we will be reading the laws that the House has been passing while you blather on and on.”  Pay them no attention.  At the end of the day, take the CSPAN footage and just put together a compilation of every stupid thing they say.  Make it a YouTube sensation.  Mash it up with video clips (etc) a la Water’s World.  Just absolutely mock the shit out of them.  Meanwhile, they are making themselves look dumber and dumber with each passing day.  I doubt it lasts more then ten days.

That is what they should do go ahead and start the hearings, and let’s go.

Long Live the Constitution!

LOST – Law Of the Sea Treaty

Posted by Troy on 26th May 2012 in Current Events, Political

In an effort to protect the oceans, the UN is trying to sell us on a new treaty.  Here are some highlights of the treaty:

It would make the security of the oceans the business of a multi-national organization.  This is fine except for the fact that this could undermine our national interests and multi-national organizations tend to suck at everything they do.  If our Navy believes the security of the seas calls for a boat to be blown out of the water, that is what they should do.

It grants a 200 mile exclusive use zone around each country as opposed to the 12 mile one we have now.  This could hamper our Navy as well as our commercial companies and intelligence gathering.

We will be on the hook to give a share (about half) of our offshore oil royalties past this 200 mile area to third world countries.  This would amount to billions of dollars (possibly trillions).  Why should we do this?  What country in history elects to arbitrarily give up half of their income and give it to other countries?  Especially when they are the strongest country?  I could understand if we were paying a tribute to avoid total destruction, but this is moronic!  And let’s be honest.  The money we give to third-world countries tends to go to dictators and warlords, not to the really poor.  To add insult to injury, we also have to give our technology to our competition!

This organization would have the power over all things that could pollute the oceans.  Of course, anything which is airborne (such as power plant emissions) would fall under this definition.  This could give this organization the power to decide how much and what kind of energy we produce.  Meanwhile, our main competitor will continue to destroy the environment as much as they choose.  Here is the thing, we may use more energy than anyone else, but we do it as cleanly as economically possible.  Let’s hold China and India and other countries accountable.  Once their standards are in line, we will work on improving ours.  It’s insane to slit our own throats.  Even if you buy into the premise of man-made global warming, we, acting alone, won’t matter.  It is also nonsense to believe that other countries will fall in line if we but set a good example.  We already set a good example, and they are polluting anyway.  Why?  Because doing so makes them a greater profit and gives them an edge over us.

There is no reason to ratify LOST.  It will accomplish nothing that we couldn’t do on our own.  I’ve never heard of a country so determined to enslave themselves to weaker countries.  Contact your Senators and demand that they vote against this.  They are going to vote on it after the election as supporters of the treaty knows that everyone would hate it.

Long Live the Constitution!