Crazy to half wish the nuke action happens and the gov slows down?

[G_j]

and why should we have to be calling Dems once again and telling them to fight?

At this point if they brought the gov to standstill wouldn't it be a good thing? What have they done that is actually good recently?
Iraq war, Goss, Gonzales, Rice, Negroponte, Bankruptcy bill, Class Action bill,
ANWR, PATRIOT Act, Iraq war, more and more $$ for Halliburton war profiteers and on and on.

maybe it's just my mood, but for the life of me I can't understand why we should need to be telling Dems to stand up and fight for the umpteenth time. And I sort of like the prospect of Congressional business grinding to a halt.
Am I crazy?

[Vincardog]

1. You are right. When you are in a hole the first thing to do is

to stop digging. When you are headed in the wrong direction the first thing to do is STOP going in that direction.

[G_j]

3. I mean if they have accomplished anything positive

in Congress recently, I am open to hear about it.

[iconoclastic cat]

2. As if anything was getting done in the freakin' first place...

[Mist]

4. Not crazy - this is a catastrophic administration, so we'd all be

better off if the gov't ground to a halt. However, the general public probably wouldn't see it that way. It went against Gingrich when he tried a congressional stunt to shut down the gov't.

[G_j]

5. well they saw that as the Republicans fault

they may just see this the same way.. fingers crossed

[MuseRider]

6. I look at it this way.

If we just slow it way way down by insisting that every bill gets read in full then at least when they do vote they will for once finally know what they are actually voting for. It's gonna be hard to hide stuff in there now.

[annabanana]

7. It would be hard to fault the Dems to want that!

Imagine expecting them to read it before they voted on it. Preposterous! Unheard of!

ha!

[G_j]

8. remember in school when we got tested

to see if we actually read what we were assigned to read?
I'd love to see a simple quiz required before a congress critter was allowed to even vote on a bill.

[MuseRider]

9. Since this administration took over

the Dems are rarely given the time to read them through but I have never understood why they voted anyway. So much crap stuck in there and they vote without knowing it.

[Vincardog]

15. What about a voice vote on every turn? None of this 'They Ayes have it"

stuff. The rules say every rote can be required to be a roll call. The Dems need to work to the rule.

[VOX]

10. You are right. But push those stubborn donkeys anyway!!!

If they don't hear from us, their constituents, then things are really sunk.

[G_j]

11. point taken

to let them know that at least WE don't don't roll over.

-thinking of the old SNL, Belushi skit "The Thing That Wouldn't Go Away"

[jazzjunkysue]

12. I agree. Bring em on. Let them hang themselves. Here's the rope.

[Just Me]

13. Aw, dude. You want your own armageddon *LOL*

I certainly understand your spot: GET IT OVER WITH!!!

You are not crazy. You are just sick of the manipulative crap being held over you and the rest of us.

WE JUST WANT PEACE. The leadership is usurping not only our blood and money,...but also our peace,...

[Zorra]

14. Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers have sold their souls to the

corporations.

They abuse their positions to do fascist corporate bidding in return for power, wealth, and fame.

They must not be confirmed.

Priscilla Owen:

General Information.
Anchoring the far-right end of a very conservative court, Priscilla Owen consistently supports big business and special interests against the claims of ordinary Americans. Before joining the court, Owen was a partner at the Houston firm Andrews & Kurth, where she represented primarily large corporations, including oil and pipeline interests. On the Texas Supreme Court, she has tended to distort or rewrite the law to reach desired results, voting consistently to dismiss the claims of injured workers and consumers and citizens wishing to protect the environment. In addition, prior to her nomination to the Fifth Circuit, she never voted to grant a minor a judicial bypass under Texas’ Parental Notification Statute. The Houston Chronicle wrote that her “interpretations were generally stricter and more conservative than the majority of her all-Republican colleagues” on the court. Indeed, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, then a fellow Justice, called one of her dissents in a bypass case “an unconscionable act of judicial activism.”1

Owen is also notoriously slow at issuing opinions and has reportedly had cases taken away from her because of her backlog. Finally, the decision to renominate Owen, after her rejection by the Senate Judiciary Committee, is indicative of a strategy on the part of Bush and his advisor Karl Rove to pack the federal judiciary with right-wing judges who are prepared to implement the administration’s anti-choice, pro-corporate, and anti-environment domestic agenda.

http://saveourcourts.civilrights.org/nominees/details.cfm?id=13270

Janice Rogers:

Following a successful Senate filibuster of her original nomination in 2004, California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown has been re nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Justice Brown is the quintessential activist jurist, incapable of separating her hard-right, out-of-the-mainstream personal philosophy from her judicial decision-making. In articles and public speeches, she espouses a radically restrictive view of the government's ability to regulate economic and business interests and a radically expansive view of the judiciary's role in striking down laws intended to serve the common good. Her judicial record is the embodiment of these views. In voting - almost always as a lone dissenter - to strike down property regulations, invalidate worker and consumer protections and severely restrict the application of civil rights statutes, she has repeatedly misconstrued or ignored precedent, brazenly condemned U.S. Supreme Court rulings, and paid almost no deference to the considered policy judgments of the people's representatives in the legislature. Indeed, Justice Brown's colleagues on the California Supreme Court, including her conservative colleagues, have openly criticized her for misrepresenting state and federal court holdings, flouting the legislature's will, and trying to remake the law in order to impose her own views - in one case chiding her for seeking to "impos personal theory of political economy on the people of a democratic state."1 The Alliance for Justice opposes Justice Brown's nomination. The Senate should not confirm her.

http://saveourcourts.civilrights.org/nominees/details.cfm?id=30971