nationally televised religious rally...

... to end filibusters. Who says religion and politics don't mix?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/24/justice.sunday/

.

 

Because, as you know, it's one of our most important religious value: the minority should have absolutely no way of defending their point of view. The Majority, no matter how slim, rules.... (I'm being sarcastic here)

 

Yes. It's sometimes disturbing to see particular religious/ideological groups trying to manipulate politics. The counterpart would be if the 'National Atheist Association' had a nationally televised rally to manipulate politicians to vote a certain way and their guest speaker was a leader in the Senate.

.

 

The use of filibuster to block a Senate vote on judicial nominees is a fairly recent development, not the Constitutional sacred cow that lefty alarmists pretend:

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oreg...f?/base/editorial/1114077446140192.xml&coll=7

 

In 1968 President Johnsom attempted to elevate a Supreme Court Associate Judge to Chief Justice. This attempt was filibustered by Republicans therefore setting a precedent.

This mixing of religeon and politics is in direct violation of the Separation of Church and State.Washington,Jefferson,Madison, and John Adams as well as New England Baptist minister Tom Backus all came out very strongly in favor of Church State Separation. Jefferson stated very clearly in his famous Letter to the Danbury Baptists that the Establishment Clause of the first Amendment is intended to erect a permanent wall of Separation between Church and State. BTW: The concept of Church/State Separation goes back over four hundred years to the founder of the Rhode Island colony Roger Williams.

Democrats and moderate Republicans oppose these judges such as Owens for many reasons. Owens stated that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the States and has said that large property owners should be expempt from pollution control laws. She has said she is opposed to labor protections such as minimum wage and 40 hour work weeks.

Democrats and Moderate Republicans are far from being "lefty alarmists". We just want to protect the rights of the minority and keep the Constitutional system of checks and balances in place. The far right neoconservative wing of the Republican Party has taken over the Executive and Legislative Branch and now they are after the Judical Branch. They wish to install judges that will rule like they want them to rule and put a rubber stamp on whatever the Executive and Legislative Branches want.

Don't get me wrong folks. I certainly do not think that our Judicial System should be packed with only Liberal Judges. The Judiciary should represent a cross section of America and therefore should have Liberal,Moderate and Conservative Judges. This provides a balance and makes sure that the rights of all are protected. Please note that I said Conservative NOT Neo-Conservative.

btw: The presiding Judge in the Terri Schiavo case was a Judge by the name of Fisher. Judge Fisher describes himself a conservative Judge that is in the Rehnquist/Thomas camp. Some much for "Judicial Activism"


"Man's capacity for good makes democracy possible. Man's capacity for evil makes democracy necessary"-- Rhinehold Niebuhr, German Lutheran Church Historian/Theologian

 

We apparently survived as a nation until 1968 without this use of filibuster.

The founding fathers clearly never intended "free exercise of religion" to preclude religiously informed values from shaping public policy.

I would like to see this in context. Do you have more details?

Has she said that she would seek to overturn such laws?

Describing a return to pre-1968 Senate rules as a "nuclear option" isn't alarmist?

Flagrant judicial activism has directly precipitated this backlash.

The political views of judges should be irrelevant. What really matters is whether they adhere to the actual text of the Constitution or stretch it beyond recognition to suit their policy agenda.

 

If that is a true concern of yours Huck, I suggest you turn your focus to your precious and oft defended neocon-fundy Congressional and Excutive Branch ideologues who have been systematically undermining or circumventing Constitutional precepts since they took office.

I suspect though that you could care less and merely subscribe to whatever authoritarian nonsense you are being fed from the sunday pulpit. Bush/Cheney/Delay and the rest are lying, unethical, corrupt vipers and if you value biblical teaching as you claim then I suggest you take a much closer look at them before making your own "alarmist" claims about judicial branch malfeasance.

All youre doing is parroting the very rhetoric being sold by Pat Robertson, Falwell and their ilk to further entrench an authoritarian theocratic agenda that seeks to deaden all dissent and discourse in total contravention to every principle of pluralism and liberty our founders bequeathed to us. Robertson's own term for it is "Dominion" and that has no place in publically accountable governance.

 

You're a master of inflammatory rhetoric, Lick, but how about providing some specific examples to support your accusations?

 

The Republicans were using the filibuster when the Democrats had control of the house and senate back in the early 90s and earlier. There's nothing new about it and nothing about it that's peculiar to democrats or liberals.

.

 

Filibuster history:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102847,00.html

Naturally, the Republicans are trying to get rid of the filibuster since they control Congress. If they weren't in power, they would be defending the filibuster. Smilarly, Republicans were calling vigorously for Congressional term limits in the early 90s but went silent on the issue once they gained control of the House and Senate.

.

 

Did Republicans routinely block Senate votes on judicial nominees to the extent that Democrats have been doing recently? I'd be interested in a numerical comparison.

 

I don't have a numbers comparison. I remember the Republicans using it vigorously in the 80s and early 90s. One could also ask if the Democrats were proposing judges as far to the left as Bush is proposing far right.

You may recall the gridlock from 88 to 92. That was an era of filibusters and vetos.

To some extent, the degree of the use of the filibuster is commensurate with how unreasonable the nominees of the President are. Bush has given the Senate the same slate of nominees he did four years ago. He hasn't compromised either. Bush can solve the problem by compromising and nominating members that will get the needed Senate vote.



.

 

Well the fact that they do doesn't mean anything. They Should NOT mix in my opinion though.

 

Frist says 'no compromise':

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/26/filibuster.fight.ap/

.

 

A Constitutional look at the filibuster and a recap of what happened in 1975.

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/OpEd/020805_constitution.html

.

 

Well Huck, obviously your youth prevents you from having any true grasp of the partisan bullshit you subscribe to without even knowing the reality of Washington power politics and the corruption it engenders on both sides of the aisle. You simply see the Christian coalition figureheads ardently pressing their exclusionary, bigotted agenda and presume they speak with any sort of biblical authority, despite the fact that any student of the Bible should be able to see clearly how out of touch with the injunctions of Christ these big money serving autocrats are behind the carefully scripted rhetoric they employ to sway politically naive fundamentalists.

You ask me for examples, yet they have been repeatedly exposed through a variety of readily available media. All you need do is google Tom "Delay+ethics" or "Republicans used the filibuster" to get some example of the duplicity you too readily buy into believing that either of the Houses represent the interests of you, me or any average American. They don't and the longer you are around to bear witness to the same hypocrisies re-enacted decade after decade first by one Party and then by the other - all in an attempt to secure their domination of the decisionmaking process - the more you will come to understand that you have fallen prey to youthful gullibility and the classic lack of true informed debate within the country.

I myself as a teen bible thumper was seduced by these same dominionist soundbites about Republicans being the guardians of morality and the necessity for putting Ronnie in and getting Jimmy out (regardless of the fact that Jimmy was a more sincere Christian however lousy a President he happened to be). Funny thing is the calls then were pontificated by the same media empire televangelists we see riding the current populist tidal wave today.

How they revel in their deceptive glory cowtowing with liars and cheats, slush fund recipients and hypocrites all in order to secure a place for their authoritarian vision of moral imposition over the secular society they hate. Sadly such imposition flies in the face of the founding principles of liberty that most Americans are supposed to cherish. Just look to Iran for examples of moral tyranny fully entrenched to see how corrupted it also becomes once in power.

You asked about republican use of the filibuster, well perhaps it would surprise you to learn that this "alarmist" soundbite to which your earlier post referred (i.e. the nuclear option) was not invented by the poster to whom you were responding but by Bill Frist himself. His nucelar option is to essentially nuke the current rules and make it easier for unilateral rubber stamping of whatever the Republican majority seeks to implement. That my boy is another step in the dismantling of any safeguards against one party control and something you should be deeply concerned about for the further tyranny it makes possible.

You might also be surprised to learn that Mr. Frist, in advocating his current intent, demonstrates a clear example of the hypocrisy I mentioned previously. In 1993-94 Senate Republicans (then in minority) used the filibuster to block more than 60 of Clinton's judicial appointments. Compare that to the current 10 over which these demagogues are crying foul. Again you might be surprised to learn that Mr. Frist himself employed the filibuster in 2000 to block the nomination of Richard Paez.

http://www.retrovsmetro.org/dividedtimes/archive/current

http://myspot.com/?page_id=143

There is plenty more material out there to demonstrate to you just how flagrantly abusive of their power and the public trust these jackals are (in both parties) and how far from Constitutional precepts our nation has been dragged by the designs of elitist and other self serving special interests (not least of which is those of Robertson/Falwell and their not-very-Christian "Christian Coalition").

I leave you with this piece to reflect upon and hopefully gain some greater discernment with which to recognise the designs of wolves in sheeps clothing...

http://www.theocracywatch.org/index.html

Should you bother taking time to read what you have asked me to provide perhaps the proverbial "scales" will fall from your eyes (to paraphrase the biblical reference). If it inspires a more investigative mindset in you, perhaps it will have proven not to have been a total waste of effort.

 

This is the only useful fact in your characteristically pompous, long-winded rant.

When I consider this example, I'm inclined to believe that Republicans will likely come to regret it if they succeed in scrapping the filibuster of judicial nominees.

 

At least you admit to something legitimate for a change in your typical one line fashion.

Obviously anything more than a pargraph one one syllable words is "long winded" to you. Tells us much about the level of your preferred reading material.

How telling as well that you do not similarly acknowledge the factual danger of Christian Dominionism and its theocratic vision for America. Obviously youre perfectly happy to live in an authoritarian tyranny so long as it starts each day with a hearty "Praise the Lord!".

 

Your screeds just have a pathetically low content/volume ratio . . .

 

As does your supposed Christianity. Given your lack of any obvious knowledge of even the recent history of whats going on in our government, let alone the international stage (as demonstrated by your need for others to offer you examples which any attentive person would know for himself), your consideration of what constitutes "content" is as inconsequential as it is irrelevant.

But I should think you are late for the abortion clinic bombing, best not tarry here.