Senator Robert "KKK" Byrd Compares Constitutional Law to Nazi Power

PittsburghAfterDark

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
You really have to love this old coot. He stands up on the floor of the Senate and declares the "Nuclear Option" to be the equivilent of legal procedures that made Nazi Germany legitimate to the Deutsche volk. Wow, that's civil now?

Nowhere in the Constitution does the Senates ratification of Federal judges require 60 votes. So what is a rule change that would limit approval of judges to a simple majority compared to? Nazi Germany of course! After all, when the founders of our country sat around wrangling their hands for 11 years between 1776 and 1787 deciding on a Constitution that would protect the rights of all branches of government and the population I'm sure they had tyranny in mind. I'm sure that, you know, we've secretly overlooked that the Constitution is the framework for a fascist state.... we just didn't know it!

Thank God for former Grand Klegel Byrd. Keep talking buddy.... keep talking!

Exerpt:
Many times in our history we have taken up arms to protect a minority against the tyrannical majority in other lands. We, unlike Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy, have never stopped being a nation of laws, not of men.

But witness how men with motives and a majority can manipulate law to cruel and unjust ends. Historian Alan Bullock writes that Hitler's dictatorship rested on the constitutional foundation of a single law, the Enabling Law. Hitler needed a two-thirds vote to pass that law, and he cajoled his opposition in the Reichstag to support it. Bullock writes that "Hitler was prepared to promise anything to get his bill through, with the appearances of legality preserved intact." And he succeeded.

Hitler's originality lay in his realization that effective revolutions, in modern conditions, are carried out with, and not against, the power of the State: the correct order of events was first to secure access to that power and then begin his revolution. Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality; he recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal.

That is what the nuclear option seeks to do to rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate.
WTRF-TV (Wheeling, WV) Complete Story

Yep, gotta love the Distinguished Gentleman from West Virginia. He gives hope to America haters all over the country and around the globe that our Loyal Opposition is with them.... dammit!
 
This sounds no worse than what comes out of many of the mouthes of far right republicans. Though considering judges have such power when it comes to protecting minority and civil rights, when the opportunity presents itself the party in power would essentially be able to alter the makeup of the courts, and no matter what the minority party can do absolutely nothing. With religion/state, and abortion issues coming up, if this law were to be passed the effects could be huge, the right to abortion being the most vulnerable. Besides, this is short sighted. If this change is made, republicans won't stop whining when democrats are in control and appointing whatever judges they please.
 
Wow, it only took ONE reponse for this board to say "It's okay."

There is no stated launguage in Senate Rule XXI that provides for a super majority to confirm judges. The President is elected, the President has earned the right by election to appoint whatever judges he or she wished regardless of party.

However if you want a former Klansman, who knows all about domestic terror and denying the rights of people, to short circuit the Constitution, compare the process to that of Nazi Germany while basking in a self generated glow of protecting the rights of normal people fine.

It's no wonder I refer to so many on this board as short bus riding, hockey helmeted, chronically masturbating wonder tards who have no fucking clue.
 
PAD around the same time Byrd was a Klansman A Bush was giving money to the Nazis.

You belong to the party of Thurmond, Lott and the CCC,
you clueless POS.
 
Famous lines from Robert "Sheets" Byrd.

"I am a former kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County and the adjoining counties of the state .... The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia .... It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state of the Union. Will you please inform me as to the possibilities of rebuilding the Klan in the Realm of W. Va .... I hope that you will find it convenient to answer my letter in regards to future possibilities." — Robert Byrd in letter to Klan Imperial Wizard Samuel Green of Atlanta

In another letter Byrd wrote that he would never serve in the military "with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

Then we have the comments in 2001 ""They are much, much better than they've ever been in my lifetime," Byrd said. "I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us... I just think we talk so much about it that we help to create somewhat of an illusion. I think we try to have good will. My old mom told me, 'Robert, you can't go to heaven if you hate anybody.' We practice that." Then Byrd warned: "There are white N*****S. I've seen a lot of white N*****S in my time; I'm going to use that word."

BTW.... WTF is the CCC?

Byrd is a rascist, you don't join the Klan and just walk away. You want to know the only former Klan member in Congress? Look no further than "Sheets" himself.

As far as your Bush/Nazi statement, IF that whole rumor is true, what does Prescott Bush have to do with anything today? What does it have to do with this topic? You want to dig up history? You're probably on what for years was an IBM compatible or what's now a Wintel machine. OMG! IBM and Thomas Watson provided the means for Nazi's to keep track of concentration camp victims and Jews! You're doing business with a former Nazi supporting company!

If that's your best rebuttal you're pathetic.
 
Council of Conservative Citizens, like the Klan in suits.

Byrd was a member of the Klan the same time as Prescott Bush was Hitlers Angel.

Thats how far back youa re talking about so yes it is valid.
 
Yeah, Hitlers Angel.

Other than kook conspiracy sites, you know, like those that also claim a plane never hit the Pentagon on 9/11 you have no proof. This would have come up in 1980 or 88 when GHW Bush was running or in 2000 or 2004. With all the shit thrown at Bush last year it would have been reported.

Welcome to the nut job wing of the American left Msut77. Guess what, you're not getting any political power back any time soon because, yes, you're all crackers. Enjoy becoming more irrelevant day, by day, by day.
 
Once again PaD is wrong. Sorry but Article I, section 5, of the Constitution says, "Each chamber may determine the Rules of Its Proceedings."

The Senate determined that a super-majority was need to invoke cloture (which sets a time limit and kills a filibuster). Therefore the Senate DOESN'T need a super majority to confirm a judge as you incorrectly claim. They need a super majority to prevent a filibuster. Which is constitutional.

Historically, the Senate has blocked 20 percent of judical nominees. The current democrats are well above that number.

If bush was confirmations he need better candidates.
 
Wow, it only took ONE reponse for this board to say "It's okay."
Click to expand...

Again, since it is no worse than what comes from the far right politicians. And I didn't defend byrd or his comments, just that it is fair considering what comes out of the other parties mouth.

There is no stated launguage in Senate Rule XXI that provides for a super majority to confirm judges. The President is elected, the President has earned the right by election to appoint whatever judges he or she wished regardless of party.
Click to expand...

Is that something you want? One man deciding which judges sit in the important positions? Think long term, you wouldn't stop whining if it was a democratic president and he/she wanted to appoint all pro choice, pro civil rights, pro separation of church/state justices.

you don't join the Klan and just walk away
Click to expand...

I'm going to have to disagree with this. The klan wasn't always on the outskirts of society, in many places it was so interwoven into society that you had little chance of being elected without klan backing, and in other it essentially was the law. School de-segregation wasn't supported by the population in 54, and it took the brown vs board of education to change the law. I wonder if you took a vote among the people who were adults in 1954, if that would have changed. I have little doubt it would. Again, look at our grandparents, the majority of them were racists, but can you tell that by looking at them today?

Also, unlike lott and thurmond, at least byrd denounced his racist past. Whether he is still a racist at heart or not, at least he publicly argues against it. And the CCC is the council of conservative citizens (basically the same group as the Citizens Council of America). They have denounced martin luther king, and place lincoln among the most evil men in history. They basically targets blacks, interacial marriage, homosexuals, womens rights, basically every other racial minority, and oppose desegregation and voting rights. Lott seemed to like them, he even gave a speach at their main convention in the early 90's.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Once again PaD is wrong. Sorry but Article I, section 5, of the Constitution says, "Each chamber may determine the Rules of Its Proceedings."[/quote]

Thereby proving my point.... that the "nuclear option" is not unconstitutional. Thanks for the help!
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark'][quote name='usickenme']Once again PaD is wrong. Sorry but Article I, section 5, of the Constitution says, "Each chamber may determine the Rules of Its Proceedings."[/quote]

Thereby proving my point.... that the "nuclear option" is not unconstitutional. Thanks for the help![/quote]


wow..for a guy calling everyone else "tards" you really should know your own points. Bird never said it was unconstitutional, you did. By the way, I am sure what Hitler did was also "constitutional". He was elected after all.

the issue is not whether the GOP rule change is a good thing. If you understand the role of the Senate and it's history of giving the minority party a voice, you will see that the rule is a good thing. .....ah who am I kidding it is good old "copy and paste my beliefs" PaD.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Once again PaD is wrong. Sorry but Article I, section 5, of the Constitution says, "Each chamber may determine the Rules of Its Proceedings."

The Senate determined that a super-majority was need to invoke cloture (which sets a time limit and kills a filibuster). Therefore the Senate DOESN'T need a super majority to confirm a judge as you incorrectly claim. They need a super majority to prevent a filibuster. Which is constitutional.

Historically, the Senate has blocked 20 percent of judical nominees. The current democrats are well above that number.

If bush was confirmations he need better candidates.[/quote]

You are proving his point. The Constitution says each chamber of Congress sets its own rules and procedures. There's nothing to keep them from changing the way they do business; in fact, it happens all the time (like the Republicans in the House changing the rules so Tom DeLay can continue in a leadership position even if under indictment). You can argue whether it is a wise change, obviously, but there's nothing unconstitutional about it. And to say that requiring "just" a majority vote is "Nazi" is laughable.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='usickenme']Once again PaD is wrong. Sorry but Article I, section 5, of the Constitution says, "Each chamber may determine the Rules of Its Proceedings."

The Senate determined that a super-majority was need to invoke cloture (which sets a time limit and kills a filibuster). Therefore the Senate DOESN'T need a super majority to confirm a judge as you incorrectly claim. They need a super majority to prevent a filibuster. Which is constitutional.

Historically, the Senate has blocked 20 percent of judical nominees. The current democrats are well above that number.

If bush was confirmations he need better candidates.[/quote]

You are proving his point. The Constitution says each chamber of Congress sets its own rules and procedures. There's nothing to keep them from changing the way they do business; in fact, it happens all the time (like the Republicans in the House changing the rules so Tom DeLay can continue in a leadership position even if under indictment). You can argue whether it is a wise change, obviously, but there's nothing unconstitutional about it. And to say that requiring "just" a majority vote is "Nazi" is laughable.[/quote]

No, Byrd never said it was unconstitutional or illegal.!!! He also wasn't saying "just" requiring a majority vote is "Nazi".. Did you read Byrd's speech or just PAD's post? He was saying that by (now PAY ATTENTION) legally manipulating the rules you can get bad results. Yeah, Byrd was being overly dramatic but the general analogy is fair. PAD was also incorrect about rule XXI.

Additionally Byrd's comments on the role of the senate are accurate as well. It is supposed to be about deliberation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top