Would Republicans allow Democrats to govern?

DieHappy

and I am A W E S O M E !!
Jul 31, 2005
5,682
1,229
53
✟26,607.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What is sad is that when Democrats take control of Congress this November and inherit all of the problems caused by Republicans they will instantly be blamed on Democrats by the same Republicans who caused them.

Any attempt by the Dems to fix them will be blocked and held up by the Republicans so they can continue to blame the Dems for the problems they created. It's clear that the Republicans only care about winning, pushing their anti-American legislation, and making their special interests happy.; they don't give a flip about making America better.

Kind of like the democrats blamed bush for the recession that started on clinton's watch? Kind of like democrats repeatedly fillibuster bills and then blame republicans for not fixing the problem?

The problems for the Democrats began when the Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994, due, Clinton has speculated, to Democrats' passing the Brady Bill.

(I am so disappointed in the American electorate....I could respect them if they had ousted the Democrats for a more substantive reason, but assault weapons????? What kind of voters do we have out there, anyway?)

And socialized medicine and the travel office and the house bank scandal and the house post office scandal and the rape allegations and ...

There was plenty to be mad about in 94.
 
Upvote 0

blueapplepaste

the purpose of life is a life of purpose
Jun 7, 2005
7,290
788
41
Texas
✟18,874.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Really? Just how so? Because he was effective at raising money? Because he was fervently pro-life? Because he knew how to drum up support for the congressional agenda? Just HOW was Tom Delay dangerous?

No, because money could buy his vote and influence and he had a lot of power in Washington is why he was dangerous
 
Upvote 0

ScottBot

Revolutionary
May 2, 2005
50,456
1,441
56
a state of desperation
✟57,712.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
No, because money could buy his vote and influence and he had a lot of power in Washington is why he was dangerous
George Soros can buy votes. In fact, most of the high level DNC is in his pocket. ANd because he uses his money to run things indirectly, rather than as an elected public servant, I concur that HE is much more dangerous than any elected politician, because he pulls the strings of the politicians.

And Tom Delay isn't the only one from both parties who's votes' are "bought".
 
Upvote 0

Alabaster

Well-Known Member
Aug 12, 2005
1,047
78
50
✟1,684.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
George Soros can buy votes. In fact, most of the high level DNC is in his pocket. ANd because he uses his money to run things indirectly, rather than as an elected public servant, I concur that HE is much more dangerous than any elected politician, because he pulls the strings of the politicians.

And Tom Delay isn't the only one from both parties who's votes' are "bought".

Could you provide the information about the Democratic opposition to Justices Alito and Roberts? I am curious if you have it?
 
Upvote 0

ScottBot

Revolutionary
May 2, 2005
50,456
1,441
56
a state of desperation
✟57,712.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Could you provide the information about the Democratic opposition to Justices Alito and Roberts? I am curious if you have it?
I'm sure if you did a google of Roberts nomination or Alito's nomination, you'll get plenty.

In a nutshell, the opposition was based primarily on whether or not the various senators could get a "feel" for Robert's or Alito's "underlying values". They weren't nominated to be preachers, they were nominated for their ability to interprete and make judgements on laws based on the words of the US Constitution and other legal precidents. John Roberts endured his entire questioning process without a single piece of reference, citing legal decisions and precedents entirely from memory. If that isn't a testimony to his intellect, I don't know what is. But instead we get fuzzy logic from Feinstein, Schumer, Kennedy, and Kerry (et al) as to why they oppose his elevation ot Chief Justice.
 
Upvote 0

Alabaster

Well-Known Member
Aug 12, 2005
1,047
78
50
✟1,684.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
I'm sure if you did a google of Roberts nomination or Alito's nomination, you'll get plenty.

Yes, but pursuant to the usual discussion parameters you are in fact responsible for your own assertions. It is not the responsibility of others to do your research for you.

In a nutshell, the opposition was based primarily on whether or not the various senators could get a "feel" for Robert's or Alito's "underlying values". They weren't nominated to be preachers, they were nominated for their ability to interprete and make judgements on laws based on the words of the US Constitution and other legal precidents. John Roberts endured his entire questioning process without a single piece of reference, citing legal decisions and precedents entirely from memory. If that isn't a testimony to his intellect, I don't know what is. But instead we get fuzzy logic from Feinstein, Schumer, Kennedy, and Kerry (et al) as to why they oppose his elevation ot Chief Justice.

Can you document this somewhere? Where did “Feinstein, Schumer, Kennedy, and Kerry (et al)” demonstrate fuzzy logic? You are continually making statements that are unsupported. Did it happen or not?
 
Upvote 0

JoshuaW

Senior Veteran
Aug 21, 2005
2,625
227
✟11,457.00
Faith
Christian
George Soros can buy votes. In fact, most of the high level DNC is in his pocket. ANd because he uses his money to run things indirectly, rather than as an elected public servant, I concur that HE is much more dangerous than any elected politician, because he pulls the strings of the politicians.

And Tom Delay isn't the only one from both parties who's votes' are "bought".
George Soros is not an elected legislator. Even if he tried to bribe Congressmen (which he doesn't) they don't have to do his bidding.
Delay, on the other hand, let it be known that his vote was for sale. He was a master of dirty politics and I defy our Republican waterboys to defend his record.
 
Upvote 0

Charlie V

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2004
5,559
460
58
New Jersey
✟16,611.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Could you provide the information about the Democratic opposition to Justices Alito and Roberts? I am curious if you have it?

I'm sure if you did a google of Roberts nomination or Alito's nomination, you'll get plenty.

In a nutshell, the opposition was based primarily on whether or not the various senators could get a "feel" for Robert's or Alito's "underlying values".

Scott suggested google.. so I googled.

I actually couldn't find a single example of opposition because "they couldn't get a 'feel' for Roberts or Alito's 'underlying values.'"

Here's some of what I came up with, there's much, much more out there on google.

Roberts was opposed in part because, working for mining companies, he opposed clean air rules and worked to help coal companies strip-mine mountaintops. He worked with Ken Starr (yes, that Ken Starr), and tried to keep Congress from defending the Voting Rights Act.

Here's another case that caused concern regarding Roberts:

The D.C. Circuit case Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 386 F.3d 1148, involved a twelve-year-old girl who was, according to the Washington Post, asked if she had any drugs in her possession, searched for drugs, taken into custody, handcuffed, driven to police headquarters, booked and fingerprinted because she violated a publicly-advertised zero tolerance "no eating" policy in a Washington D.C. metro station by eating a single french fry. Roberts wrote for a 3-0 panel affirming a district court decision that dismissed the girl's complaint, which was predicated on the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, specifically the claim that an adult would have only received a citation for the same offense, while children must be detained until parents are notified.

On Alito's confirmation:

Democrats were concerned with Alito's stance on many controversial rulings, including the strip search of a 10 year old girl, seizing a dairy farmer's land with force, and the shooting of a 7 year old boy.

Environmental groups were among those opposing Alito because "Judge Alito’s views raise concerns that he would support Commerce Clause challenges by polluters and developers to public health and environmental laws that Americans have relied upon for decades, including the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act the Endangered Species Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. "

Groups defending disability rights stated:

His vote could place in jeopardy the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Fair Housing Amendments Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and other disability rights statutes.
On the federal appeals court, Judge Alito:
  • Ruled that Congress lacked power to enact the FMLA.1 Later, in a similar case, the Supreme Court came to the opposite result.2 It rejected Judge Alito’s reasoning that the FMLA was not an appropriate response to discrimination.
  • Dissented when the federal appeals court upheld Congress’ power to ban possession of machine guns.3 His reasoning rejected over 60 years of case law regarding Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce
 
Upvote 0

k9catts

Well-Known Member
Apr 22, 2005
916
63
74
San Antonio
✟8,908.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
For the past six years Democrats have had no voice in American government, and they expect to regain that voice after the November election.

But during the Clinton administration Republicans fought and impeded every piece of legislation, every appointment offered by the Democrats. They even used their Congressional majority to impeach President Clinton, in the words of Newt Gingrich "because we could".

Republicans have demonstrated they will block even legislation that will benefit the majority of Americans simply because they don't want Democrats to be able to take credit for it, such as national healthcare.

My question, do you believe Republicans would permit Democrats to govern even if they held a majority, even if they regained the White House? Or would they act as they did before 2000, as a subversive force protected by the Constitution. Would Fox News continue to create misinformation, fomenting hate to lay the groundwork for an eventual return of Republican rule?

Democrats have always referred to Republicans as "honorable opponents", Republicans simply consider Democrats as the enemy. I'm beginning to agree with James Carville, who said "when your opponent is drowning, throw the bastard an anvil."
I don't think they are willing to give up power even if the demos do win one or both houses of Congress.

After all when dubya signs the no more Habius Corpus law he will be able to diassapear anyone that criticises him and that person may never be heard of again.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums