Still Fighting has moved! Check us out at
www.stillfighting.com!
December 29, 2005
Friday, July 22, 2005
Friday's Links
Activism
No Rubber Stamps. Just because the President has nominated someone who doesn't seem outrightly crazy doesn't mean that the Senate should be a rubber stamp. We all know that Bush would like it to be, but there's this little clause in the Constitution about requiring the Senate's to "advise and consent" to any judge. That means the Senate should be able to ask any pertinent questions in determining if Roberts is worthy of their consent. Join Senator Pat Leahy in his petition to make sure the Senate upholds its Constitutional responsibility.
News
House votes to oppose early Iraq withdrawal. We all know that the Senate is waiting on pins and needles to question John Roberts, but what's the House up to these days? Oh, you know: The same old, same old. What does that mean? Well, it means that once again, the GOP is using its numbers edge to marginalize Democrats, and silence any possible critics of the administration. By significant margins (which means Democrats crossed over), the House voted to oppose any "early" withdrawal from Iraq, as well as to continue to tolerate the status quo at Gitmo. But in a closer vote, the House also voted allowing Democrats to add an amendment requiring Bush to provide a benchmark for success in Iraq. The GOP is clearly playing hardball, seeking to silence any criticism of Bush's immense failure, and in doing so, is doing a great disservice to our country. But there's no reason that Democrats need to be as complicit as they are, and it's up to you to take them to task when they roll over.
House approves renewal of Patriot Act. That sound you heard Thursday night was the door slamming on some of your civil liberties. Yes, the House passed the Patriot Act (again). The Senate is now looking at their own version. Only, the House voted to make several amendments permanent, despite Democrats' best efforts to reauthorize them for just four years (it failed 218-209). The only good news to come out of the House Bill is the so-called "Library Amendment," which would require the FBI Director to personally authorize any any FBI requests for bookstore or library records of suspected terrorists. Ah, America. Land of the free, unless the government thinks you're up to no good.
Supreme Court Pick Shifts Attention From Rove, Agent Disclosure. The timing couldn't have been better for the Bush Administration. Amidst a criminal investigation into Karl Rove that 6 out of 10 Americans were following closely, Bush made his Supreme Court nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. Bushco is hoping that this announcement will pull public interest away from Rovegate, but what the president doesn't seem to understand is that the American public can look at more than one issue at once. Silly as it may sound, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. No one should be less focused on Rove or his criminal investigation, yet that's precisely what's happening. The audacity is incredible, but it's up to us, the American people, to speak out. Call your Congressmen and Senators, and demand that they get answers about Karl Rove.
Editorials
Thank you, Mr. President. As this article is subtitled, last week it seems that John Roberts wrote Bush a blank check. A check for what? Well, a check to detain suspected terrorists, even domestic ones (like, say, Eric Rudolph), without due process. Roberts wasn't alone - he joined a unanimous decision on the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case that basically said Hamdan could be tried before a special military tribunal. In that tribunal, many rights that we take for granted can be taken away from him, including the presumption of innocence. Roberts seemed to have some reservations in his oral arguments, but signed the decision anyway. As the article says, "Did he decide that Judge Randolph had it right down the line in Hamdan, or did he sign on to a flawed and sweeping opinion because he was auditioning for the job Bush has now picked him for? Neither prospect is reassuring." Just what we need - another partisan hack in an important position of power in Washington.
Al-Qaeda has changed; Bush strategy also needs to shift. Even though Wes Clark is a four-star general, it doesn't take a great military mind to comprehend what he's getting at. Simply put, Bush's approach of just taking out state sponsors of terrorists, and hunting down the terrorists and killing them just isn't going to work. Clark argues that we must defeat the ideology of terrorism. This isn't making an "excuse" for terrorists, as the right-wing likes to argue whenever anyone advocated anything besides bombing the crap out of the Middle East. Rather, it's the only approach that stands a chance of working in the long term. Wouldn't it be nice to have this kind of tough, common sense leader in the White House?
A Right Turn With a Smile. E.J. Dionne cautions against being taken in by John Roberts' amiable demeanor. Just like Judge David Souter turned out to be a liberal in conservative's clothing, Roberts very likely could be an ultra-conservative disguised a moderate, or an "unknown". We can't accept his lack of a significant record as a judge to allow him a spot on the court that will decide very important national issues. Dionne outlines what some of those might be: "The government's power to protect the environment, to safeguard civil rights, including the rights of the disabled, and to provide protections for employees and consumers." Serious conservatives hailed his nomination - certainly there's a reason for that, right?
|
December 29, 2005
Friday, July 22, 2005
Friday's Links
Activism
No Rubber Stamps. Just because the President has nominated someone who doesn't seem outrightly crazy doesn't mean that the Senate should be a rubber stamp. We all know that Bush would like it to be, but there's this little clause in the Constitution about requiring the Senate's to "advise and consent" to any judge. That means the Senate should be able to ask any pertinent questions in determining if Roberts is worthy of their consent. Join Senator Pat Leahy in his petition to make sure the Senate upholds its Constitutional responsibility.
News
House votes to oppose early Iraq withdrawal. We all know that the Senate is waiting on pins and needles to question John Roberts, but what's the House up to these days? Oh, you know: The same old, same old. What does that mean? Well, it means that once again, the GOP is using its numbers edge to marginalize Democrats, and silence any possible critics of the administration. By significant margins (which means Democrats crossed over), the House voted to oppose any "early" withdrawal from Iraq, as well as to continue to tolerate the status quo at Gitmo. But in a closer vote, the House also voted allowing Democrats to add an amendment requiring Bush to provide a benchmark for success in Iraq. The GOP is clearly playing hardball, seeking to silence any criticism of Bush's immense failure, and in doing so, is doing a great disservice to our country. But there's no reason that Democrats need to be as complicit as they are, and it's up to you to take them to task when they roll over.
House approves renewal of Patriot Act. That sound you heard Thursday night was the door slamming on some of your civil liberties. Yes, the House passed the Patriot Act (again). The Senate is now looking at their own version. Only, the House voted to make several amendments permanent, despite Democrats' best efforts to reauthorize them for just four years (it failed 218-209). The only good news to come out of the House Bill is the so-called "Library Amendment," which would require the FBI Director to personally authorize any any FBI requests for bookstore or library records of suspected terrorists. Ah, America. Land of the free, unless the government thinks you're up to no good.
Supreme Court Pick Shifts Attention From Rove, Agent Disclosure. The timing couldn't have been better for the Bush Administration. Amidst a criminal investigation into Karl Rove that 6 out of 10 Americans were following closely, Bush made his Supreme Court nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. Bushco is hoping that this announcement will pull public interest away from Rovegate, but what the president doesn't seem to understand is that the American public can look at more than one issue at once. Silly as it may sound, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. No one should be less focused on Rove or his criminal investigation, yet that's precisely what's happening. The audacity is incredible, but it's up to us, the American people, to speak out. Call your Congressmen and Senators, and demand that they get answers about Karl Rove.
Editorials
Thank you, Mr. President. As this article is subtitled, last week it seems that John Roberts wrote Bush a blank check. A check for what? Well, a check to detain suspected terrorists, even domestic ones (like, say, Eric Rudolph), without due process. Roberts wasn't alone - he joined a unanimous decision on the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case that basically said Hamdan could be tried before a special military tribunal. In that tribunal, many rights that we take for granted can be taken away from him, including the presumption of innocence. Roberts seemed to have some reservations in his oral arguments, but signed the decision anyway. As the article says, "Did he decide that Judge Randolph had it right down the line in Hamdan, or did he sign on to a flawed and sweeping opinion because he was auditioning for the job Bush has now picked him for? Neither prospect is reassuring." Just what we need - another partisan hack in an important position of power in Washington.
Al-Qaeda has changed; Bush strategy also needs to shift. Even though Wes Clark is a four-star general, it doesn't take a great military mind to comprehend what he's getting at. Simply put, Bush's approach of just taking out state sponsors of terrorists, and hunting down the terrorists and killing them just isn't going to work. Clark argues that we must defeat the ideology of terrorism. This isn't making an "excuse" for terrorists, as the right-wing likes to argue whenever anyone advocated anything besides bombing the crap out of the Middle East. Rather, it's the only approach that stands a chance of working in the long term. Wouldn't it be nice to have this kind of tough, common sense leader in the White House?
A Right Turn With a Smile. E.J. Dionne cautions against being taken in by John Roberts' amiable demeanor. Just like Judge David Souter turned out to be a liberal in conservative's clothing, Roberts very likely could be an ultra-conservative disguised a moderate, or an "unknown". We can't accept his lack of a significant record as a judge to allow him a spot on the court that will decide very important national issues. Dionne outlines what some of those might be: "The government's power to protect the environment, to safeguard civil rights, including the rights of the disabled, and to provide protections for employees and consumers." Serious conservatives hailed his nomination - certainly there's a reason for that, right?
|
December 29, 2005
No Rubber Stamps. Just because the President has nominated someone who doesn't seem outrightly crazy doesn't mean that the Senate should be a rubber stamp. We all know that Bush would like it to be, but there's this little clause in the Constitution about requiring the Senate's to "advise and consent" to any judge. That means the Senate should be able to ask any pertinent questions in determining if Roberts is worthy of their consent. Join Senator Pat Leahy in his petition to make sure the Senate upholds its Constitutional responsibility.
News
House votes to oppose early Iraq withdrawal. We all know that the Senate is waiting on pins and needles to question John Roberts, but what's the House up to these days? Oh, you know: The same old, same old. What does that mean? Well, it means that once again, the GOP is using its numbers edge to marginalize Democrats, and silence any possible critics of the administration. By significant margins (which means Democrats crossed over), the House voted to oppose any "early" withdrawal from Iraq, as well as to continue to tolerate the status quo at Gitmo. But in a closer vote, the House also voted allowing Democrats to add an amendment requiring Bush to provide a benchmark for success in Iraq. The GOP is clearly playing hardball, seeking to silence any criticism of Bush's immense failure, and in doing so, is doing a great disservice to our country. But there's no reason that Democrats need to be as complicit as they are, and it's up to you to take them to task when they roll over.
House approves renewal of Patriot Act. That sound you heard Thursday night was the door slamming on some of your civil liberties. Yes, the House passed the Patriot Act (again). The Senate is now looking at their own version. Only, the House voted to make several amendments permanent, despite Democrats' best efforts to reauthorize them for just four years (it failed 218-209). The only good news to come out of the House Bill is the so-called "Library Amendment," which would require the FBI Director to personally authorize any any FBI requests for bookstore or library records of suspected terrorists. Ah, America. Land of the free, unless the government thinks you're up to no good.
Supreme Court Pick Shifts Attention From Rove, Agent Disclosure. The timing couldn't have been better for the Bush Administration. Amidst a criminal investigation into Karl Rove that 6 out of 10 Americans were following closely, Bush made his Supreme Court nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. Bushco is hoping that this announcement will pull public interest away from Rovegate, but what the president doesn't seem to understand is that the American public can look at more than one issue at once. Silly as it may sound, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. No one should be less focused on Rove or his criminal investigation, yet that's precisely what's happening. The audacity is incredible, but it's up to us, the American people, to speak out. Call your Congressmen and Senators, and demand that they get answers about Karl Rove.
Editorials
Thank you, Mr. President. As this article is subtitled, last week it seems that John Roberts wrote Bush a blank check. A check for what? Well, a check to detain suspected terrorists, even domestic ones (like, say, Eric Rudolph), without due process. Roberts wasn't alone - he joined a unanimous decision on the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case that basically said Hamdan could be tried before a special military tribunal. In that tribunal, many rights that we take for granted can be taken away from him, including the presumption of innocence. Roberts seemed to have some reservations in his oral arguments, but signed the decision anyway. As the article says, "Did he decide that Judge Randolph had it right down the line in Hamdan, or did he sign on to a flawed and sweeping opinion because he was auditioning for the job Bush has now picked him for? Neither prospect is reassuring." Just what we need - another partisan hack in an important position of power in Washington.
Al-Qaeda has changed; Bush strategy also needs to shift. Even though Wes Clark is a four-star general, it doesn't take a great military mind to comprehend what he's getting at. Simply put, Bush's approach of just taking out state sponsors of terrorists, and hunting down the terrorists and killing them just isn't going to work. Clark argues that we must defeat the ideology of terrorism. This isn't making an "excuse" for terrorists, as the right-wing likes to argue whenever anyone advocated anything besides bombing the crap out of the Middle East. Rather, it's the only approach that stands a chance of working in the long term. Wouldn't it be nice to have this kind of tough, common sense leader in the White House?
A Right Turn With a Smile. E.J. Dionne cautions against being taken in by John Roberts' amiable demeanor. Just like Judge David Souter turned out to be a liberal in conservative's clothing, Roberts very likely could be an ultra-conservative disguised a moderate, or an "unknown". We can't accept his lack of a significant record as a judge to allow him a spot on the court that will decide very important national issues. Dionne outlines what some of those might be: "The government's power to protect the environment, to safeguard civil rights, including the rights of the disabled, and to provide protections for employees and consumers." Serious conservatives hailed his nomination - certainly there's a reason for that, right?
