When the gods want to punish you

[ConstitutionGuy]

they give you what you ask for.

You may well get one or even a handful of Senators to join Conyers on Jan 6 to object to Ohio's electors. Perhaps even Florida, et al. And yes, it would be an historic event and tremendously embarrasing and perhaps even damaging to Bush and the Republicans. But given the relevant law that governs the process (Title 3, United States Code), the practical reality is that Bush will be inaugurated come Jan 20.

Laying aside for now the arguments about "Yes but we will continue to investigagte and he'll be impeached" (which by the way puts Cheney, or Hastert, or some other Republican into the Oval office, depending on the sequence of events), what do you think the reaction of the Republican senate majority will be?

I have a prediciton. What ever reservations they might have had about exercising the "nuclear option" to end judicial filibusters will be gone. Frist and allies (including the White House) will consider any Senate objection instigated by the Democrats to be a first strike in an all out, no holds barred, thermonuclear political war.

In retaliation, Frist will invite the president to send whatever judicial nominees he wishes to the Senate with a guarantee that they will be confirmed. Look for Scalia in the chief justice's seat before Spring is over.

Does this have the possibility of back firing? Sure. If the Democrats become the Senate majority again in 2006 (not likely), they could harshly punish their Republican colleagues, and then hold out hopes to be able to retaliate in kind with a Democratic president in 2009. But I'm betting Bush will get to make at least 2, perhaps even 3 Supreme Court appointments before he leaves office (by whatever means), and that's really all the Republicans need. Screw the lower courts. All roads in the federal judicial system eventually lead to the Supreme Court anyway.

Once the Supreme Court is locked up with conservatives, that legacy will last for at least 20 years.

[SpiralHawk]

1. So, are you proposing that we roll over and play dead,

begging for mercy from BushCo and the Corporate-Republican machine?

To this notion I say NUTS. Massive electoral fraud happened. Now is the time to push the issue.

There's a difference between kneeling down and bending over.

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is truly a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

[ConstitutionGuy]

5. Not at all

Just saying beware the law of unintended consequences. Think strategically instead of tactically. As Jeb Bartlett told Sam during a chess game, "See the whole board."

A senate objection may bring extremely short term "feels good" relief but ultimately cause extremely long term pain.

[warrior1]

2. Almost 60 percent of American's

voted for Kerry.

I think what you might see is The People standup and shout Yes, my vote does count

[EFerrari]

3. Hubris is no respecter of persons. Bush, Cheney, Scalia,

[joevoter]

4. It is true that it is unlikely that Dems will win a majority in a rigged

election thus they have no choice but to contest the results. As for the fear of an all out political war... Isn't that what the neocons are counting on - That Senators (and the people) will live in fear rather than pursue evidence through contesting the vote and investigation?

The Constitution is only worth as much as people defend it.

[Alizaryn]

17. Thats the exact point of this. Its a snowball that has just about

finished its journey down a hill. We MAY AS WELL fight every step of the way at this point, the only other option is to go out "with a whimper".

[joevoter]

6. When the god want to reward you

They give you the faculties to effectively strive for what you need. Like a fair election. We are not helpless. Strong evidence comes from strong investigation.

[ConstitutionGuy]

7. The right tool for the right job

When I was young my father once caught me trying to drive a nail with the butt end of a screw driver. He chastised me and handed me a hammer and told me to "always make sure you're using the right tool for the job."

If investigation, exposure, and prosecution of election fraud is the goal, then a Senate objection is not the right tool. It is not an investigative option. Sure, they'll debate for a couple of hours, with each Senator limited to one 5-minute turn at the podium, but how much "investigating" will take place? None. All that will be accomplsihed in a practical sense is the opening of a political war in the Senate, the likes of which has not been seen in our generation. And lets face it, at least until 2006 the Democrats in the Senate really don't have the guns to wage such a war.

[merh]

10. You don't know what they have uncovered since November 2.

If others will stand with Conyers, I would suspect that they have uncovered something substantial.

[ConstitutionGuy]

12. Regardless

of what someone 'thinks' they've uncovered, you're talking about overturning a presidential election. Even under the most ideal circumstances of discovery, you're talking about presenting and proving a case that would take weeks if not months of testimony, cross examination, forensic analysis, etc using even the most basic rules of evidence. No Senator is going to overturn a presidential election because some PhD has produced a statistical study (which hasn't been vetted or cross examined) or a few affidavtes have been filed complaining of long voting lines.

[merh]

14. Well, it never hurts to try ...

In an effort to save our nation!

[VTGold]

8. Many Republicans are frightened by what they see in this admin.....

....you never know...it would be self-preservation for them too.

[merh]

9. Isn't Frist on his way to visit the tsunami victims?

I heard that he was going over there, anyone know when he is supposed to leave?

[lonestarnot]

11. All I have to say to this Dems will never be majority again unless we

fix our elections.

[thanatonautos]

13. The saying is: `Quem deus vult perdere, dementat primus.'

I think it's seen as a Roman epitaph on graves of
children born out of wedlock, meaning:

`Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.'

It's attributed to Euripides, though it's unsourced,
and I don't know who there is that attests to it.

You've got some variant or other, here.

And, BTW the Republicans are not gods:
they can still be fought, and they should
still be, no matter what powers they may
threaten to deploy.

Cheers!

[liam97]

16. Oh please

civil rights injustices were NOT overturned through some chess game, but through a people's movement. What we have here is an illegitimate government and a legitimate challenge - not some chess game.

[thanatonautos]

18. When did I say anything about chess? n/t

[liam97]

19. Not you, the original poster

had a quote which says we must look at the entire board

[thanatonautos]

20. Oh, OK ... I agree, it's not a chess game! n/t

[seabeyond]

15. and if the dems play nice, frist will still encourage bush

to send radical judges to be nominated, and they will still run rough shod over the minority dems and they will still be little shits doing whatever they want..........like they have done the last two years, while the dems have tried to play nice

so

[femme.democratique]

21. "ConstitutionGuy" the Repukes are ALREADY DOING everything you say....

...so that "fear mongering" on your part really means nothing. They're already power hungry. They already have plans to subvert or destroy the American Left. The difference is that after the election contest it will be more visible. Which IMO is a good thing, it will only serve to divide their constituency (freakie fundie rw versus moderate repubs). This is the only way for Dems to show that they are not totally impotent.