Why are we letting a criminal appoint a supreme court justice?....

[Marleyb]

and how many criminals are participating in confirming him?

It is absurd that congress is going on with business as usual, while the criminal in chief goes about pretending all is well. And our congress is full of criminals as well.

We must force congress to stop business as usual until we find out who the criminals are in our government. The impeachment must come first, as well as the Abramoff trials. We need to stop participating in this fakery!

[undergroundpanther]

1. Because nobody has guts

The whole lot of them are corrupt maybe,all on the same agenda.

[Greybnk48]

2. Good question Marleyb

I sent an email to Russ Feingold last week asking this very same question. The * and Vice * ARE criminals as are many in Congress, and everyone in DC knows it. Amazing.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[meganmonkey]

7. LOL - Generally, around here "Criminal in Chief"

refers to our pResident, who has admitted to breaking the law and announced that he will continue to do so.

[greentrees]

8. who are you talking about

"... please check your fact..dont' give the other side more talking point...."

That's a darned good point:

First we sat Congress is filled with criminals, and then we say we have to find out who they are ... that kind of contradictory stuff doesn't make any sense, and the other side will use it for sure.

[cali]

10. Umm

I rather doubt that the other side is going to make hay out of this post. They don't need to come to DU for that. They're perfectly adept at simply following the Lee Atwood Swift boat slime paradigm. And in case you haven't noticed, Congress does appear to be rather ethically challenged by the republican Abramoff scandal.

[Greybnk48]

12. If you're talking to me greentrees, I have a question.

What cave have you been living in?? * and V* illegally invaded a sovereign nation based on an argument that has all but been proved deliberately false (e.g., Downing Street Minutes and forged Niger Docs.). They withheld info from Congress. As far as Congress goes, Abramoff's tentacles seem to branch far and wide on the Repug side. Not to mention the outing of a CIA agent which has already reached inside this WH and in my mind is treason.

On edit: Just for good measure, add Frist's insider trading.

[Warren DeMontague]

19. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BROKE THE LAW.

He has broken it repeatedly, and flagrantly, and he has indicated he fully intends to continue breaking the law. In fact, his Administration has issued statements to the effect that the President doesn't really need to obey the law- any law- if he doesn't particularly feel like it.

I don't know how old you are, but less than a decade ago, we were continually told that the "rule of law" was so sacrosant that it was worth $80 Million of our tax dollars to hound a President over whether his ejaculate landed on the dress of a woman that wasn't his wife.

Now, we have a president who has taken upon himself the unilateral power to detain Americans without trial, to rewrite laws even as he signs them, and to spy on Americans in CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE FISA LAW..

And I think given those circumstances it is perfectly legitimate to question whether we should be letting this potentially rogue, criminal executive stack the most powerful court in the land, before we've even been able to hold hearings on these matters.

BTW, welcome to DU. Enjoy your stay.

[newyawker99]

20. Hi greentrees!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[greentrees]

22. Hi greentrees!!

Thank you, newyawker99 ... DU looks like a fun place.

BTW ... I like your town.

[rwork]

9. He is the only president

in US history with a felony.

[Marleyb]

13. what talking point?

They president is a criminal!

Congress if full of criminals!!

They can have em...

here's another...

Unitary executive 'theory' is another name for dictatorship!
Bush and Alito are traitors!

they can have all the talking points they want- they have no answer, no excuse...

[Warren DeMontague]

17. Code Name Hardhat.... HARD HAT!

"Bye Bye, Lardass!"

[mopaul]

4. why are we letting 'him' do anything? he's an admitted tyrant.

[cali]

5. Let me respectully suggest that

this type of "question" is inane. It's really a piece of rhetorical outrage. By rhetoric, I mean pesuasive speech. I'm sympathetic with your outrage, but suggestions re forcing Congress to do this or that are fruitless. Want to force Congress to do something? Work on a congressional campaign. Surely you know that a repub House is not going to impeach bush? And you must know that Congress has nothing to do with conducting criminal investigations of its members.

[Marleyb]

11. Work on a congressional campaign??!!!

Surely you realize that at this point in time 'elections' are meaningless! They are fixed which is why so many congressmembers no longer fear we the people. They don't give a damn what we think anymore. And waiting for an election in the hopes it will change is inane.

We must think outside of the box!

[Greybnk48]

14. Yes. let's all be civilized while our country goes down the toilet.

Playing by the rules only holds if both parties honor it. This is not currently the case.

[cali]

16. Do you honestly believe

this is the first time in the nation's hx that we've been in danger of a repressive gov't? Think back only over the last 55 years or so to Nixon and McCarthyism. And just what do you suggest?

[cali]

15. and what do you suggest beyond

rather inarticulate ranting? Yes, gerrymandering is a problem. Still, it's patently absurd to claim that elections are meaningless. Democrats will, despite everything, pick up seats this year. We have the opportunity to take back congress. Pendulums swing. Momentum shifts. Your writings suggest that you know little about government and history.

[EFerrari]

6. It's disgusting. I may have to just stop watching or reading.

We shouldn't be debating a SC nominee. We should be watching impeachment proceedings.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. THAT is an excellent question.

I don't think he should be allowed to appoint anyone to the friggin' post office until we've established whether he broke the law.

RULE OF LAW! RULE OF LAW!

[Balbus]

21. Why are we? Well, why are you?

:shrug: