DSM: Appropriate to link DSM inquiry with Senate Filibuster over appointments

If the House Judiciary committee does not appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate the Downing Street Memo, the Senate should filibuster all the White House appointments, including the Supreme Court Justices

Some have suggested that there is "nothing that can be done" about making the House Judiciary Committee do anything.

The argument, although flawed, goes something like this:

A. The Republicans control all three branches of government

B. Congressman Sensenbrenner has no interest in reviewing the matters

C. Only the House Judiciary Committee can review the matters

D. Nothing can be done

Another view

My view is that the Senate can link the failure of the White House to take accountability for war crimes as the reasonable basis to take no action on a smaller issue.

This is another way of saying that the Appointment of a Supreme Court justice is of secondary importance relative to allegations the White House has violated the US Constitution and laws of war.

Thus, if the House Judiciary Committee refuses to act on the White House allegations, then the Senate should refuse to act on the White House nominations.

There is no basis for anyone to assert that "it cannot be done" as there is nothing that prevents the Senate from stopping all action until the larger issues of state importance are addressed:

Allegations of war crimes

Allegations of violating the US Constitution

Allegations of a coverup over the leaking of a CIA operative name

Allegations of fixing facts

Allegations of voting rigging

Etc

At this juncture, I am outraged that anyone would dare have the audacity to say that a judge "deserves" an up or down vote.

They don't "deserve" anything.

Rather, the country and citizenry deserves accountable government to the rule of law.

And if the only way to get accountability to the rule of law is to shut down the White House nominations until there has been a House Judiciary appointment of a special prosecutor/investigator, then so be it.

For it is absurd that this nation dare preach to anyone about the 'rule of law' when its own government refuses to assent to that principle.

Whether or not Rove did or did not leak the name is a matter of law for the Prosecutor to decide.

But make no mistake. There is nothing that mandates that the White House nomination go forward in the absence of a House Judiciary Committee review of the Downing Street Memo, war crimes, Rove alleged misconduct and crimes, and other information.

Whether this does or does not lead to an impeachment is irrelevant.

I would hope that the Senate leadership realize that in the absence of sending a strong signal over the higher priorities of the Constitution in re war crimes, that there is little merit to argue that lower priority activities like nominations deserve any Senate Debate.

Thus, I ask all to simply remind the Senate leadership that a filibuster of all White House nominations should commence until the House Judiciary Committee agrees to the following:

Appoint a special counsel/investigator to look into the Downing Street Memo;

Make a full review of the investigators findings in re the downing Street Memo, allegations of war crimes, and Rove alleged crimes in re leaking names of CIA agents;

Review the information that comes back from a special counsel and/or investigator; and

Make a referral to the full House on the issues of war crimes, unlawful invasion of Iraq, high crimes, and other potential high crimes and misdemeanors committed by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and/or Gonzalez.

Translation: If the Senate is not going to exercise leadership and show the White House that there is a larger issue that needs to be addressed, then there is no reason to continue debating appointments to the Supreme Court.

You might as well leave the seat vacant until there are some credible debates that occur in the wake of the real questions:

Is this government serious about the Constitution?

Will this government hold its elected officials accountable to the rule of law?

Is the oath of office important?

Are the treaties this nation signs of any importance?

If the nation will not address those by way of an investigation through the House Judiciary Committee, then there is no reason to appoint any more Supreme Court Justices.

Self evidently, in the absence of answers, there is no reason to appoint any more judges; for their answers will simply come back with an affirmative, "Yes, things are fine despite no facts.

Congratulations, America. You have successfully made a mockery of the rule of law and Constitution and invite greater contempt for America and this absurd circus you call "the Constitution."

Choose: Do you want a constitution or a Tyrant?

If you want a tyrant, then do what the White House wants.

If you want a constitution, the Senate needs shut down the debates on the Supreme Court justices and force the House Judiciary Committee to get off its ass and look into this matter.

Choose.

One or the other: A constitution or a tyrant.