Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 04/15/05 2:11 pm:
This article says it better than I could.

Filibuster myth-busters
By Wendy E. Long
Published April 15, 2005

If you were a senator, whose views would be more important to you: liberal special-interest groups, or registered voters?

The liberal groups demand that Democrats filibuster (prevent the Senate from voting on) some of President Bush's best-qualified nominees to the federal appeals courts. But a recent Ayres McHenry nationwide survey reveals that 82 percent of registered voters believe well-qualified nominees deserve a Senate vote. That includes 85 percent of Republicans, 81 percent of Democrats, and 81 percent of Independents.

Some Senators apparently believe voters won't see through partisan obstructionism. But they can't possibly believe the other myths about the filibuster.

Myth No. 1:Filibuster of judges is a sacred tradition.

Fact: The filibuster is nowhere in the Constitution. It is not among the "checks and balances" our Founding Fathers created. It did not even exist until the 1830s, and the "tradition" involves legislation, not judicial appointments. The filibuster was used to defend slavery and oppose the Civil Rights Act — hardly noble purposes. The current obstruction of judges is no "traditional" filibuster: it is the first time in more than 200 years that either party has filibustered to keep judges with majority support off the federal bench.

Myth No. 2: Mr. Bush's nominees are being treated no differently than other presidents' nominees.

Fact: In the last Congress, 10 of the president's 34 appellate nominees were filibustered — the lowest confirmation rate since FDR. Democrats mask their sabotage of these nominees by citing the confirmation rate of judges to federal courts overall — an irrelevant statistic, because the federal courts of appeal make final rulings on most issues of constitutional law. Liberals also argue that Abe Fortas was not confirmed as Chief Justice in 1968. But Mr. Fortas was opposed by a Senate majority (both Republicans and Democrats), and President Johnson withdrew the nomination. Today, a Senate majority supports the nominees, and the president is not withdrawing them.

Myth No. 3: The Senate has a "co-equal" role with the president in judicial nominations.

Fact: The Constitution expressly gives the president — and only the president — the power to nominate federal judges. All the Senate can do is say "yes" or "no" to the president's choices. That is the "check" in the "checks-and-balances" system, to make sure no unqualified nominee becomes a federal judge. It does not give Senators — and a minority of Senators at that — the power to insist on judges who suit their own ideology.

Myth No. 4: The current filibuster is about "free speech."

Fact: Historically, the filibuster has given senators in the minority a chance to speak on the Senate floor before the majority rushes to pass a bill. But the current filibuster is not about the right to speak out. It is about blocking judges. These nominees have been pending for months — some for years. There has been, and remains, ample time to speak about them. The majority welcomes free speech and free debate — followed by a free vote.

Myth No. 5: The filibuster protects "the right of the minority" to veto nominees.

Fact: The Constitution requires two-thirds vote for certain things. Appointing judges is not one of them. So the basic principle of democracy applies: The majority decides. The filibuster of judicial nominees turns majority rule on its head, because 41of 100 senators can keep a judge off the bench without ever even voting.

A liberal minority needs federal judges to advance their agenda — allowing child pornography as free speech, mandating same-sex marriage, removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, banning school prayer and preventing the death penalty for murderers and terrorists — because they can't win these issues at the ballot box. Mr. Bush promised to nominate judges who will apply the law as written and stay out of politics. The recent Ayres survey shows 67 percent of voters agree that "we should take politics out of the courts and out of the confirmation process." A full 61 percent of Democrats agree with this statement, as well as 73 percent of Independents and 69 percent of Republicans.

The American people want senators to do the job our tax dollars pay them to do. Senators who fail to do their jobs — either by failing to show up for their committee meetings, by voting against restoring the Senate tradition of up-or-down votes for judges, or by halting the work of the federal government — might find themselves out of work when they really need the consent of the governed: at their next election.

Wendy E. Long is counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, a former Clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas and former press secretary to former Sens. Gordon Humphrey and Bill Armstrong.

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 04/15/05 2:30 pm:
No ex, you got it all wrong. I try and advocate the truth, and the truth is I know you're a smart guy, so why use another's column without citing your source? Everyone borrows from others, but give credit where credit is due.

PW, I would call it plagiarism because it is, and it isn't right.

Plagiarize: "to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own :

use (another's production) without crediting the source

intransitive senses : to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source

Source: http://www.m-w.com

Clarification/Follow-up by powderpuff on 04/15/05 3:03 pm:

Oh come on now, there is nothing wrong with taking something you read somewhere and making a question out of it. I don't consider that in any way plagiarizing.

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 04/15/05 3:16 pm:
Powderpuff,

My apologies, I didn't mean to refer to you as "PW."

Now I agree, "there is nothing wrong taking something you read somewhere and making a question out of it." I already said everyone borrows from others. But when it's virtually word for word someone else's work and you fail to cite the source it's wrong. Wrong is wrong.

It wasn't intentionally picking on ex. What happened is I Googled the phrase "the US Senate has confirmed 205 of Bush’s nominations" to check his facts. The first hit in "News" was the article. I find that a little disappointing coming from a smart guy like ex.

Just cite the source, we deserve to know who we're responding to, the expert or their source.

Steve

Clarification/Follow-up by powderpuff on 04/15/05 5:03 pm:

Regardless of what source someone finds something, if they post a question about it, you would be responding to who posted it, not their source.

Really!

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 04/15/05 8:47 pm:
No Powderpuff, I've watched too many "experts" here, at askme and wetellyou post the works of others verbatim as if it were there own.

If one is using another's very words, it's not too much to ask to tell us that in some way. It's inconsiderate toward the original source to not give them credit. It's inconsiderate to the target audience, and it goes toward credibility.

I'm not saying excon isn't credible, but when I give someone the benefit of the doubt that they are posting their own thoughts and words, and stumble into finding out it's someone else's work, it's disappointing. I don't believe it's asking too much for a slightly higher standard from people signed up as "experts." Just cite the source.

Steve

P.S. Btw ex, I didn't mean to come off so harsh, it's been a long, stressful week so my apologies there. I'd still have that beer with you if the opportunity presented itself. :)

Clarification/Follow-up by powderpuff on 04/16/05 7:59 am:

We disagree, I can go along with your idea that if you are using someone else's words for an ANSWER to a question, it would be proper to site your source, but I see nothing wrong with borrowing the writings of others to make a question without regard to the 'source'.

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 04/16/05 9:17 am:
"use (another's production) without crediting the source" m-w.com

Doesn't matter which side you're on.

Clarification/Follow-up by imatease on 04/17/05 4:30 pm:
heres more,

Mr. Myers clearly lacks the minimum legal experience that should be required of a nominee to such an important federal court. He has no significant litigation experience at the trial or appellate level, and has produced no legal scholarship of note.

I found that at,
http://www.nela.org/advocacy/judicial_myers.cfm

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 04/18/05 6:08 am:
there is no pre-requisite requirement to be a judge or a trial lawyer . The only real opposition to Meyers is his work for mining lobbyists and his(what his critics call )Extreme Conservative positions on Native Americans and the environment . All legit reasons for his to be turned away by an up or down vote ;not good enough reasons to filibuster . I will post about the rest of the nominations . Except maybe one or two (including Meyers) there is no good reason to deny their appointments.