Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
The Courts

Journal bmetzler's Journal: ``Justice for the Jobless'' 28

Journal by bmetzler

``Justice for the Jobless'', that's what the Democrats are calling their 15 hours of debate during this marathon session in the Senate.

They forget that it is the Senate's responsibility to confirm judge's. It is not the Senate's responibility to put a chicken in every pot. Or give everyone a job.

As a matter a fact, for most of the 2 years the Democrats controlled the Senate, I was without a job. And do you know what "justice" I got from the Democrats? I got squat. Thanks to my Senators Wellstone and Dayton.

Now in Minnesota we elected a Republican Senator, got a tax cut passed, and this fall I get a real good job. So many good things happened with a Republican majority in the Senate. Real "justice" for the jobless is only one of them. I think it's safe to say that I'll be voting Republican for a long time to come.

When the Senator's break I'll be calling Dayton and letting him know about the "justice" I got being jobless with a Democratic majority. It wasn't something I'd want again. No, real justice comes with tax cuts and less spending on issues that aren't the government's responibility.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

``Justice for the Jobless'' More

``Justice for the Jobless''

Comments Filter:
  • I had no idea that I was a Senator in Minnesota. What the heck am I doing in California? I should be in Washington voting on important issues! I bet the thought of me as a Senator scares ya! ;)

    Ok, seriously. I think blaming Democrats for your unemployment is about as valid as me blaming Republicans for my unemployment last year. It's a myth that the President or Congress creates jobs. They don't.

    Pres. Clinton spouted off for over 6 years about how many jobs he created. Well, he didn't. And President
    • I don't think he was crediting the politicians with getting his current job (I hope not, or my estimation of him just dropped a few notches). What I think he was doing was saying that calling this 'justice for the jobless' is just a bit of political opportunism, with more sound bites than effective policy. As close as he came to crediting politicians for his job is saying that the tax cuts put through helped him there.

      I dunno.

      What I'm wondering about is why wait for the end of the filibuster to talk to yo
      • What I'm wondering about is why wait for the end of the filibuster to talk to your rep? Talk now. Could provide a good sound bite when asked by the local papers what he thinks of the current senatorial sideshow. What I think he was doing was saying that calling this 'justice for the jobless' is just a bit of political opportunism

        Yes, the Democrats seem to think that the Senate should do "something" for joblessness. And this "something" should keep them from confirming judicial nominee's. It's rediculiou

        • Hmmm... I guess they didn't teach this in Civics 101 where you went to school... the job of a Democrat (any kind) isn't to listen to what you want... it's to give you what THEY think you want.

          So if they turned ON the voicemail after hours, when you couldn't get a busy signal, some damn fool would likely try to tell them something they didn't want to hear that could be avoided with a busy signal...
      • Once again "Brent" is full of shit.

        Having watched about 4 hours of the debate on CSPAN, listening to arguments from both sides, it is clear to me that the Democrats are in the right on this one.

        There are many pressing issues facing our country (unemployement being on of them - millions of Americans aren't as "lucky" as Brent right now) but instead the Republicans have ordered 30 hours of continuous debate over this non-issue.

        168 - 4

        That 168 judicial nominations that the Senate has approved. The 4 tha
        • You should know by now that using logic and facts will get you no where. You have to make shit up.

          Ok, seriously, good points. Well said. But, damn man! 4 hours of CSPAN!? Are you ok? Maybe you need a couple dozen drinks, because 2 minutes of CSPAN kills me.
        • I haven't heard any refutation of the 168-4 statistic (apparently, the Senate's job is to rubber-stamp the President's nominations???), nor any answer as to why they are spending 30 hours on 4 judges instead of unemployment, minimum wage, Iraq, Social Security, medicare, etc etc etc IRAQ.

          You know if the Republican Senate would just bring back the "blue card" rule it would avoid a lot of problems.

          Instead we have the Republican leadership threatening to remove the filibuster from the Senate rules. Fortunat
          • I heard Bill Bradley talking about this sort of thing on the radio back in 1996. He was doing a book tour for Time Present, Time Past. Interesting sidelight - I ran into him in a bookstore (not literally), and talked with him for a minute. Nice guy. So I bought his book (and had him sign it).

            Anyway, filibustering judicial nominees is a new escalation. In this particular case, confirmation of judges that are favored by a majority of the Senate is being blocked. I believe that this abuse of the syst
            • Anyway, filibustering judicial nominees is a new escalation. In this particular case, confirmation of judges that are favored by a majority of the Senate is being blocked. I believe that this abuse of the system is part of a trend that dates back to Nixon (and the Democratic response), and is being fueled by an incestuous combination of political and media interests on both sides. I don't think that it's going to get better, and I don't think that there is really a serious anti-incumbent movement. The new g
        • Since I believe the government that governs best, governs least, I don't really have a problem in general with sort of action. And from what I remember, four federal court judges doesn't even begin to compare with the number the Rep. stonewalled during the Clinton years (not to mention it was the longest period in history without a new Supreme Court Justice, owing largely to partisan politics on behalf of the current members).

          I was just trying to point out where I thought 'brent' (why the quotation marks?)
          • FWIW, what should the government do to curb unemployment? (Short of massive public works projects, including WWII, I'm not sure that they can. I'm interested in other opinions.)

            Funny you should mention this...when I was watching CSPAN last night the Barbara Boxer (D Calif) was advocating, among other things, a new Federal Highway Works bill - purpose would be to create jobs/revenue (not sure if I'm in favor but still).

            Also, I think another idea was tax-credits for manufacturing jobs so it is cheaper to k
            • Also, I think another idea was tax-credits for manufacturing jobs

              So, would that be a good idea if a non-democrat proposed it, or would it be "corporate welfare" and "tax cuts for the rich"? Just curious.

              • would that be a good idea if a non-democrat proposed it

                If a Democrat proposes it, it's "helping the common man," whereas if a Republican proposes it, it's "pork-barrel politicks!"

                Geez, get it straight!!!
          • I was just trying to point out where I thought 'brent' (why the quotation marks?) had his remarks misinterpreted.

            Why the quotation marks? Because I think it's obnoxious how he signs all his posts "-Brent"

            "Oh look at me, I'm too honest and forthright to use a 'handle' as you kids call it. Oh no! I don't need to hide behind a username I can use my own real name. I'm a bIg sTuPiD hEaD"
        • A lot more than 4 were blocked in committee. Both during the Clinton years, and now. How many of Clinton's nominees were killed by Republican fillibusters? That would be zero. How many have been blocked by fillibuster in the history of the US, not counting the current round? That would be zero.

          Once the nominees have passed out from committee, they deserve a vote. I'm just waiting for the first time the Republicians fillibuster a democratic nominee, to hear how the Democrats try to spin that as "different".

        • That 168 judicial nominations that the Senate has approved. The 4 that they have not approved is what this 30 hours of debate is about.

          Bush has nominated 209 justices. Out of those 168 were approved, and 4 left the judiciary comittee but have failed to get a vote. That's about 20% that have not been approved. I don't think that an 80% approval rating can be considered "rubber-stamping."

          However, the debate is not about nominees who are not approved. If they are not approved because they didn't leave

          • OH SHIT WE'RE IN THE NO SPIN ZONE!!!!

            All of Bush's nominees are Evil Arch-Conservatives and I for one don't care if they all get fillibustered in the committee, floor, bathroom whatever.

            Now go do something productive...like putting on your acne cream.
  • 168 to 4. Boo-hoo, cry me a river, 4 of your candidates didn't get approved.
    • 168 to 4. Boo-hoo, cry me a river, 4 of your candidates didn't get approved.

      You like that number, don't you? Too bad it's a lie. 168 nominees have been approved. 4 are on the floor without a vote. An unknown (to me) number have not been approved.

      The problem is not that nominees don't get approved. Nominees fail to get approved all the time. That's fine. If you don't want to approve a nominee, knock yourself out. Both Democrats and Republicans have chosen to not approve many nominees.

      There are

      • You miss a key fact here. If they don't keep these guys from being voted on, then they WILL be approved simply due to the Republican majority. These 4 are people they don't want approved. Tough. Find replacement for these 4, get them approved, and move on.
        • You miss a key fact here. If they don't keep these guys from being voted on, then they WILL be approved simply due to the Republican majority. These 4 are people they don't want approved. Tough. Find replacement for these 4, get them approved, and move on.

          No, I don't miss that. I know very well there's a majority in the Senate, and who it is. The Republicans planned this 30 hour debate, but they gave Democrats plenty of opportunities to conclude the debate and move onto more important issues. However,

          • Once again, I think we have a misunderstanding. The Democrats don't want these 4 people appointed. If they allow it to go to a vote, they will lose the vote. Thus, they prevent the vote from taking place. Simple. Why did the Republicans schedule a 30 hour debate when they knew the Democrats wouldn't budge? That doesn't make much sense. Find 4 different people, get the other side to agree, and get them in. How hard is that to understand?
            • Find 4 different people, get the other side to agree, and get them in. How hard is that to understand?

              So the Democrats are going to just roll over and "approve" if the Republicans find 4 different but ideologically similar nominees? Fat chance.

              This 30 hour debate was scheduled just to give the Democrats a chance to show what is really the most important issue to them. :) I'll have you know, it's not joblessness.

              -Brent
              • Basically, what you seem to be saying, is that the Democrats should bow before their Republican masters and submit to their will. Am I correct?

                Also, on another topic, I'm wondering why the Republicans spent so much time trying to figure who had sex with Clinton and if he lied about it when they should have doing more important things? Also, why aren't they investigating the leak of that CIA agent's identity, huh? Finally, why is the administration so incompetent that they STILL DON'T have body armor for t

Slashdot Top Deals

Any given program, when running, is obsolete.

Close