I want to know what everyone thinks about this whole situation. Should these judges get the up or down vote? Should Democrates keep up the filibuster? Why or why not?
Printable View
I want to know what everyone thinks about this whole situation. Should these judges get the up or down vote? Should Democrates keep up the filibuster? Why or why not?
I think the Democrats should keep fillibustering. Alot of theese judges are far right extreamists, and only the most radical ones are blocked. We have the fillibuster for a reason, and I noticed no one complained when the Republicans used it against Clinton. Personally, I'm glad the Dems found a backbone.
*agrees*Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLadyNyara
I hope they don't reach any comprimise and then Frist loses his nucular option that others really don't like. I have viewed this as just part of the process and am more pissed that they are wasting so much time on this. Democrates should let them throw the nucular option out there. I think it would help out the dems and hurt the republicans.
Things such as these need to be taken in context. As was mentioned, the Right filibusted the Clinton Administration when he attempted to pack the court, so it would be quite hypocritical to suddenly say that filibustering is Anti-American. In the end, the Supreme Court needs independent minds, not minds that have any sort of rack record for favoring one side or the other. Despite what Tom DeLay might want you to think, the Judicial Branch is SUPPOSED to be independent of the other two branches, not complimentary of them.
Take care all.
From what I understand(and I have yet to actually look this up) most of Clinton's nominations never even got to the filibuster stage. They never made it past the Committe
Ive heard alot of bad things about some of these judges. However, I can't make much of an informed opinion on this issue. I haven't really been following it (I don't even know who the judges in question are.) I do, however, know for certain that I do NOT want a right wing extremist as a supreme court judge. No way in hell.
Well i dont think that the filibuster should be removed... Did u know the republicans blocked 60 of Clinton's nominees, not with the filibuster i dont think, but they blocked them, and now they have the nerve to call democrates obstructionists. I hate the way they twist things, but its only for the village idiot i guess.
The Democrats blocked a lot more judges than the Republicans blocked during Biilzebubba's presidency (mostly because Trent Lott was about nutless), and with a whole lot less reason. Even in general, it's not the conservative judges who are out there re-writing the Constitution.
I think the Democrats are going to stretch out the 'talks' as long as they can, and the true question is going to be whether Frist has the testicular fortitude to say "these guys just aren't going to work with us" and bust out "the nuclear option"--until then, good men and women are going to continue to get borked.
Regardless of whether these nominated judges should be confirmed, this really boils down to one party trying to assert dominance over the entire government. America historically has been fiercely resistant to let one party dominate the federal government in this way, and that's not going to stop now, nor should it.
Besides, every time the Dems have worked with the Bush administrationa nd the Congressional Republicans they've been hung out to dry and burned, so it's not like they have any incentive to work together now. Tyranny of the majority has its consequences.
Also, Redneck, I would ask you kindly to stop referring to President Clinton as "Biilzebubba". Or if you wish to continue, expect others to refer to your beloved President Reagan as Mr Mephisto, or some other more creative demonic nickname.
Exactly. That's one of the beuties of our government.Quote:
America historically has been fiercely resistant to let one party dominate the federal government in this way, and that's not going to stop now, nor should it.
He he. Good idea.Quote:
Also, Redneck, I would ask you kindly to stop referring to President Clinton as "Biilzebubba". Or if you wish to continue, expect others to refer to your beloved President Reagan as Mr Mephisto, or some other more creative demonic nickname.
I must aggree that it is a good idea to allow the prevention of one party being dominate. This world is about compromises. You don't get what you want rather you get in the middle ground.
Such as the minority party deciding themselves which judges get appointed and which don't?Quote:
Regardless of whether these nominated judges should be confirmed, this really boils down to one party trying to assert dominance over the entire government.
Every time? I've got to ask--when has this happened even once?Quote:
esides, every time the Dems have worked with the Bush administrationa nd the Congressional Republicans they've been hung out to dry and burned, so it's not like they have any incentive to work together now.
Are you serious. "Lame" is OK, "Nazi" is OK, "I hope they shoot each other" is OK, "I want them all to die" is OK, but "Biilzebubba" offends people's delicate sensibilities? If I instead call him "Mr. Fluffy Bunny", will that be suitably inoffensive?Quote:
Also, Redneck, I would ask you kindly to stop referring to President Clinton as "Biilzebubba".
You could always call Good Ol' Bill "Clit-Ton" :laugh: Thats actually pretty funny and it is a terrible insult!
Moving on to what you said about the minority party gets to choose. No. They get to choose who they don't want. This is 10 people we are talking about. Not hundreds. They have already let hundreds go through. They just think these 10 are not up to the standard. That is this case though.
look, Bush is intenionally ramming the absolute most extreme, most objectionable judges through because he wants to have his way and crush the Democrats and set up a theocratic judiciary that will very much "rewrite the Constitution" the same way you think "crazy liberal" judges would rewrite the Constitution. The Democrats would be utter fools to just stand by and let it happen. So they're fighting because the Republicans have intentionally backed them into a corner. The Republicans made this bed, and now they have to sleep in it. All they have to do to avoid this mess is remove the absolute most extreme nominees. Plenty of good old conservative judges would get through because the Republicans do hold the majority and they do have the votes.
You certainly don't have to stop calling one of our Presidents Satan, and it's not against the rules or anything, but it would be a gesture of good faith. I don't think you like when people here call George W Bush a moron, or a fascist, or whatever else they call him. So lead by example and show Clinton the respect that every current and former President deserves. Otherwise you just paint yourself as more and more a crazed reactionary that should be disregarded on all counts. I'm just giving advice, not announcing a staff dictum or anything.
I might post examples of Bush leaving "compromising Democrats" out to dry, although I think it's pretty obvious and the direct cause of such resolute opposition to Bush on his initiatives now. Besides, Bush has been pushing initiatives that are directly in conflict with core Democratic values. When Clinton tried to push through healthcare reform the Republicans dug in and fought to the death. You probably didn't have a problem with that.
Eest asked you to stop. From what I gather, it wasn't a warning, and if you continue using that term you aren't going to be banned again.Quote:
Are you serious. "Lame" is OK, "Nazi" is OK, "I hope they shoot each other" is OK, "I want them all to die" is OK, but "Biilzebubba" offends people's delicate sensibilities? If I instead call him "Mr. Fluffy Bunny", will that be suitably inoffensive?
Which ones? How about the details, here--which one is "absolute most extreme, most objectionable", and how do we know they're so extreme?Quote:
look, Bush is intenionally ramming the absolute most extreme, most objectionable judges through
Are rewriting. Thus the Massechussettes Supreme Court examining the most explicitly Christian document since the Council of Niceae and finding a right to homosexual marriage, the US Supreme Court finding a right to privacy in the ninth Amendment and a right to kill your children hidden in that, the cases of Ron Harlan and Ms. Clarke, etc.Quote:
hat will very much "rewrite the Constitution" the same way you think "crazy liberal" judges would rewrite the Constitution.
This is an interesting one here--which initiatives? Would that be the spending increases? The education bill so abysmal that Ted Kennedy supported it? I really would like to see some example of where this crazed theocratic conservative pushed through some crazed theocratic bill or missive or whatever and "hung the Democrats out to dry". And I'd love to see one of these "compromising Democrats".Quote:
Besides, Bush has been pushing initiatives that are directly in conflict with core Democratic values.
Are you talking about the constitution of the United States of America? Just because it says "God" doesn't mean it is Christian.Quote:
Are rewriting. Thus the Massechussettes Supreme Court examining the most explicitly Christian document since the Council of Niceae and finding a right to homosexual marriage
Actually, while the influence of Christianity on the founding of our nation is obvious, the Massechussettes Supreme Court bases their decisions (in theory) off of the Massechussettes state constitution--with several references to "the great Legislator of the universe" and notations about the "duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Perserver of the universe."Quote:
Are you talking about the constitution of the United States of America? Just because it says "God" doesn't mean it is Christian.
I don't know what you were trying to point out there but that could be any religion with a Deity.
I think I'll go hit my head against the wall instead.
Actually the first three presidents of the US as well as several of the founding fathers were Deists or held Deistic ideals.. not christians. Look it up in Merriam-Webster’s Encyclopedia of World Religion(this only mentions the first three presidents, not all the found fathers(that were deist).. I'll have to find a reputable source on the rest of them.
Anyways back on topic. Why should we not keep in our congress the ability of the minority to defend itself against the majority?
A few points.
1) The rights of the minority MUST be preserved, and that especially includes the right of the public to have fair judges. Conservative judges dominating the Supreme Court, of all things, is utterly inexcusable. Really, the justices shouldn't really be biased at all, but at the very least they should show themselves able to make unbaised decisions based on the law and only the law.
2) The Constitution is NOT a religious document and to believe it is is utterly asinine. The Constitution is a legal document, it defines the government and grants certain rights, including the freedom of religion. Nowhere does it say "the freedom to have one religion imposed upon you by the government".
3) The right of the Fillibuster is integral in protecting the minority, and it IS hypocritical of the Republicans to want to eliminate it in order to preserve their own power. This country is already too dominated by the politicans and the people lack the power of choice (as we've two generally bad choices, Democrat or Republican) and the power to make one's voice heard is dwindling. We're already on dangerous road, and the elimination of the fillibuster and what it could mean for our country in the long run is a terrible thing indeed.
Exactly. And yet somehow that isn't taught in school...Quote:
Actually the first three presidents of the US as well as several of the founding fathers were Deists or held Deistic ideals.. not christians.
Thank you. It's good to know some people realize this.Quote:
2) The Constitution is NOT a religious document and to believe it is is utterly asinine. The Constitution is a legal document, it defines the government and grants certain rights, including the freedom of religion. Nowhere does it say "the freedom to have one religion imposed upon you by the government".
*agrees*Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLadyNyara
The best nickname for Clinton is Slick Willy. Billzebubba(or whatever) was mildly amusing, but not nearly as appropriate.
Yeah, because the Patriot Act was supported by the constitution - oh wait. No, that wasn't made by conservative judges, but it wasn't declared unconstitutional, which it definitely should have been.Quote:
The Democrats blocked a lot more judges than the Republicans blocked during Biilzebubba's presidency (mostly because Trent Lott was about nutless), and with a whole lot less reason. Even in general, it's not the conservative judges who are out there re-writing the Constitution.
I support the fillibusters, because that allows the minority party to at least have some voice in a one-party government. We have a Republican executive branch, a majority Republican legislature...do we also need a vastly Republican judicial branch? Basically, the Republicans are just bitching now because it's against Republican judges. I, for one, couldn't care less which party it is - fillibusters have a sound purpose in a two-party government. It's not anti-American, it's anti-one-party-domination.
EDIT: Also, how can you call the Constitution religious when it explicitly forbids the government to do anything "respecting an establishment of religion."
Update:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...libuster_fight
Take care all.
They just just form a new party or work together all the time so that things stay moderate. They would hold all the power...or something. I wish I could say that this is the end but that supreme court nomination that will eventually come is just a big time bomb waiting to go off.
Like that guy who said it's impossible to govern a nation without God and the Bible (Washington)?Quote:
Actually the first three presidents of the US as well as several of the founding fathers were Deists or held Deistic ideals.. not christians.
But liberal judges dominating the Supreme Court are tolerable? It's arguable that we lost our right to fair judges long ago--and inarguable, if you live in Colorado.Quote:
1) The rights of the minority MUST be preserved, and that especially includes the right of the public to have fair judges. Conservative judges dominating the Supreme Court, of all things, is utterly inexcusable. Really, the justices shouldn't really be biased at all, but at the very least they should show themselves able to make unbaised decisions based on the law and only the law.
Not to mention that despite the claims of their detractors, I have yet to see any evidence that these judges are "extreme, far-right radicals".
First, I was referring to the Massechussettes State constitution--which is an explicity Christian document.Quote:
2) The Constitution is NOT a religious document and to believe it is is utterly asinine. The Constitution is a legal document, it defines the government and grants certain rights, including the freedom of religion. Nowhere does it say "the freedom to have one religion imposed upon you by the government".
Second, nobody's trying to "impose one religion upon you"--but the Constitution also doesn't grant the right to never, ever hear the word "God".
The filibuster isn't being eliminated (not to mention, this 'right' isn't anywhere in our Constitution). The Senate will be allowed to vote them down on one subject.Quote:
3) The right of the Fillibuster is integral in protecting the minority, and it IS hypocritical of the Republicans to want to eliminate it in order to preserve their own power.
Where did i say that liberal judges dominating the Supreme Court were tolerable? Heavily biased judges of any stripe are not and don't just assume that I am OK with the other side because I disagree with you.Quote:
But liberal judges dominating the Supreme Court are tolerable? It's arguable that we lost our right to fair judges long ago--and inarguable, if you live in Colorado.
Not to mention that despite the claims of their detractors, I have yet to see any evidence that these judges are "extreme, far-right radicals".
1) Witholding a demand for proof on the Christian document, what does that have to do with anything? This isn't 1800, we are a diverse population with diverse religions. A constitution should not be considered to be a religious document and be permitted to be affiliated with the state, as the state should be secular. If this is the case, then it needs to be changed.Quote:
First, I was referring to the Massechussettes State constitution--which is an explicity Christian document.
Second, nobody's trying to "impose one religion upon you"--but the Constitution also doesn't grant the right to never, ever hear the word "God".
2) Yes, you are trying to impose religion on someone by simply saying "You gays cannot marry because God says so". If a judge is going to make decisions based on the Bible, they do not deserve to be a judge at all.
We are not a Democracy. We are a Republic. We are a nation instituted to give power to the majority while protecting the right of the minority. That goes back to the formation of the Senate and the House of Representatives, which give equal voice to all states in the Senate and greater voice to larger states in the House of Representatives. The Fillibuster is a tool to preserve that, and it seems the Republicans are trying pretty darn hard to get rid of it.Quote:
The filibuster isn't being eliminated (not to mention, this 'right' isn't anywhere in our Constitution). The Senate will be allowed to vote them down on one subject.
huh?Quote:
But liberal judges dominating the Supreme Court are tolerable? It's arguable that we lost our right to fair judges long ago--and inarguable, if you live in Colorado.
This I agree with whole-heartedly.Quote:
Second, nobody's trying to "impose one religion upon you"--but the Constitution also doesn't grant the right to never, ever hear the word "God".
Allowing this would effectively eliminate fillibusters. If the majority party is able to call a majority vote to eliminate each particular fillibuster, how could a minority party ever again fillibuster?Quote:
The filibuster isn't being eliminated (not to mention, this 'right' isn't anywhere in our Constitution). The Senate will be allowed to vote them down on one subject.
Please tell me where he said that.Quote:
Like that guy who said it's impossible to govern a nation without God and the Bible (Washington)?
Oh, and btw- Article 11 of the treaty of Tripoli, (unanimously ratified by the senate, and signed by John Adams)- The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.
Washington may have very well said that(I don't know), but that doesn't make it right. Washington didn't write the Constitution.
That would be here. Other notations on Washington's faith can be found here.Quote:
Please tell me where he said that.
Just in case, here's a copy of it, with such quotes as "We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence," and "and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design."Quote:
1) Witholding a demand for proof on the Christian document,
So now that it isn't 1800 we need to scrap all our founding documents and write up some new ones?Quote:
This isn't 1800, we are a diverse population with diverse religions.
It has to do with the fact that such a document does not, anywhere in it, contain the right to homosexual marriage.Quote:
what does that have to do with anything?
False. Homosexuals can marry--we know, because many of them, when they decide to be homosexual, leave their wives or husbands. On the other hand, saying "this homosexual couple is a legitimate marriage now, and if you pay taxes, buy insurance, get loans, or do business in any way you have to acknowledge it as such" is an attempt to impose non-religion on someone.Quote:
2) Yes, you are trying to impose religion on someone by simply saying "You gays cannot marry because God says so".
We are not, however, a nation instituted to let the minority make the decisions--or else we wouldn't bother with voting at all.Quote:
We are not a Democracy. We are a Republic. We are a nation instituted to give power to the majority while protecting the right of the minority. That goes back to the formation of the Senate and the House of Representatives, which give equal voice to all states in the Senate and greater voice to larger states in the House of Representatives. The Fillibuster is a tool to preserve that, and it seems the Republicans are trying pretty darn hard to get rid of it.
No, but we need to revise them so people aren't beholden to certain things in them. Kind of like how we revised them to stop slavery.Quote:
So now that it isn't 1800 we need to scrap all our founding documents and write up some new ones?
Since I'm sure you're smart enough to know what I meant, I'll assume you're being flippant. In any case I fail to see how a state mandate allowing two people who have absolutely no bearing on your life is forcing non-religion on you. As the state has no involvement in your own personal religion, their granting of marriage is nothing but a civil thing granting rights to the minority that really don't do anything to you.Quote:
False. Homosexuals can marry--we know, because many of them, when they decide to be homosexual, leave their wives or husbands. On the other hand, saying "this homosexual couple is a legitimate marriage now, and if you pay taxes, buy insurance, get loans, or do business in any way you have to acknowledge it as such" is an attempt to impose non-religion on someone.
Obviously. However, as I said, we are to preserve the right of the minority. That's why we have laws protecting minorities, because at some point or another they were oppressed or denied rights. This is the same thing, homosexuals are not given a right that they deserve, a right that will have absolutely no bearing on the rights of the majority, and a right we, as a government, have no right to deny them.Quote:
We are not, however, a nation instituted to let the minority make the decisions--or else we wouldn't bother with voting at all.
We do let the minority make decisions or else we wouldn't have the electoral college and everything would be done on the popular vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
I notice that they describe the quote as "questionable", and say it has never been confirmed.Quote:
That would be here.
Precisely. If your religion/ marriage is so fragile that allowing a couple that you happen to oppose get married will destroy it, well, then, whose fault is that?Quote:
Since I'm sure you're smart enough to know what I meant, I'll assume you're being flippant. In any case I fail to see how a state mandate allowing two people who have absolutely no bearing on your life is forcing non-religion on you. As the state has no involvement in your own personal religion, their granting of marriage is nothing but a civil thing granting rights to the minority that really don't do anything to you.
Oh horrors! We're trying to impose tolerance on someone, instead of staying bound to fundamentalist dogma!Quote:
False. Homosexuals can marry--we know, because many of them, when they decide to be homosexual, leave their wives or husbands. On the other hand, saying "this homosexual couple is a legitimate marriage now, and if you pay taxes, buy insurance, get loans, or do business in any way you have to acknowledge it as such" is an attempt to impose non-religion on someone.
I agree that gay marriages probably as a practical matter do far far less damege to marriage than other things, like no fault divorces, adultary, pornography, and things like that. On the other hand, I oppose having gay domestic partnerships recognized as a marriage, as it would tend to have the effect of forcing sincerely religious people to negate their beliefs by either having to recognize a gay marriage (say if they list anniverseries in a newsletter), or to perform a wedding ceremony for a gay couple, even though they believe that God told them through whatever holy book they believe in that being gay is a sin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
Why would the religious person have to do that?! you lost me I am afraid.
If you don't like gay marriage... don't go to the places they are being held. If you don't like hosting them.. I am sure you could decline to host them. Afterall this is a world of freedom.. of course I more then likely overglanced something.
So basically, you're saying that you shouldn't have to recognize any beliefs that aren't your own as valid. I'm an atheist, and therefore I shouldn't have to hear the word "God" anywhere - if I do hear it, that would be an infringement on my beliefs, since I don't even have to accept the fact that other people could be religious. You can substitute "atheist" for "religious nutjob" and "the word 'God'" with "of homosexual marriages" and "religious" with "homosexual" in that last sentence, and you'll have the same argument.Quote:
On the other hand, I oppose having gay domestic partnerships recognized as a marriage, as it would tend to have the effect of forcing sincerely religious people to negate their beliefs by either having to recognize a gay marriage (say if they list anniverseries in a newsletter), or to perform a wedding ceremony for a gay couple, even though they believe that God told them through whatever holy book they believe in that being gay is a sin.
Me being a christain.Really the whole gay marriage thing was jsut there so Bush oculd get re-eleted because people like redneck actually cared aobut that instead of worrying aobut real issues like the war.Heck if anything this society in america is the most selfish one in american history.WW1 people rationed there own food and materials.WW2 everything was rationed and most things went to the war effort.
Now we deal with having ot hear garbage said by the president.That gays marrying will destroy the sanctity of marriage.Bah thats bullcrap.We have greater problems than seeing two guys french kiss each other and having rings on there hands and being recognised as partners.I dont think it destroys the sanctity of marriage.How does it?
Anyway I'm tired.
This thread has gone off topic.