« Friday Open Thread | Main | At Least He’s Not Your Professor »



Looks like the GOP sold its soul to Dobson and he's ready to collect.


GOP--soul? They have/had one?

James C. Hess

It's wrong for people to actively--your words, not mine--'undermine'--the courts, but it's okay for activist judges to undermine the Constitution by interpreting law instead of reading it?

That is crap. Given your source is The Los Angeles Times, which ACTIVELY seeks to undermine the United States of America with factually inaccurate, factually baseless, and outright fraud passed off as objective journalism, it sounds like you are ACTIVELY supporting the Democrat party, that ACTIVELY seeks to destroy the United States of America with immorality, deviancy, perversion, adultery, the murder of the unborn, the celebration of depravity, and the constant circumventing of the democratic process.

Little Boy Blue

Ha, Ha, Coloradodem is funny. Once again they cannot dispute the message so they attack their opponents. Hey-Coloradodem, why don't you get some t-shirts pringted up saying "Dear Dr. Dobson, please commit suicide", Like the ones that tolerent and openminded dems had printed about Delay.

Little Boy Blue

oops- printed up


Forget the LA Times. Ken Salazar lied to Colorado voters and he has comitted the first (of many more to come) flip flop...get out the waffles.


Coloradodem- Whats the explanation for Senator Salazar?


Mr. Hess, was that one of your "humor" pieces?

Ter Ducken

Are you going to actually reference something that Salazar lied about, or did you just want to find a way to use the word "waffle" in a sentence. Would it kill you to actually include a fact?


Hey James Hess how's animal abuse for perversion: See Dobson's book "The Strong Willed Child" where he proudly recounts how he beat his 12-lb dog with a belt, as an example of good child-rearing practices.

And intolerance Little Boy Blue? You've got to be kidding. Let's see, who are the groups this crowd can't tolerate: gays, liberals, Democrats, Jews, Catholics, Mexicans, anyone who disagrees with them, it's an orgy of hate.


How about these to quotes for facts? These are from the campaign:

"One of the most disgracefully partisan spectacles of President Bush's first term was the way Senate Democrats obstructed the appointment of his judicial nominees with filibusters. In a pre-election interview with the News editorial board, Sen. - elect Ken Salazar said he favored an up-or-down vote in the full Senate on judicial nominations. We hope he sticks with that position even if his Democratic colleagues-to-be lean on him, as they are almost certain to do." Editorial, "Salazar's Pledge," [Denver] Rocky Mountain News, November 8, 2004

"I would hope all nominees get up or down votes," Salazar answered.
MSNBC http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6089481/

Little Boy Blue


Please answer this question, is it okay for liberals to print up shirts that say, "Kill President Bush" and "Dear Tom Delay, please commit suicide"?

According to the Democrats they are the party of tolerence and are accepting of other people's points of views. Do you think these shirt are tolerant or accepting of another person's point of view.

As for me, I am not intolerant of gays, I like Jews and Catholics or Hispanics (I think it is unfair to group all Hispanics into a "Mexican" sterotype). And this may scare you, there are quite a few Jews, Catholics, and Hispanics that work at Focus on the Family.


Ter Ducken,
Given the quote that wonderwoman has must graciously provided above. What is your explanation of Senator Salazar's

Phoenix Rising

Don't know if anyone noticed, Ter Ducken asked for proof that Salazar lied, not that he was capable of changing his mind.


Can any Democrat explain why Senator Salazar has changed his mind?


Good for Salazar for not wilting under these idiots' pressure.

Mike Miles fans, do you see now why it's self-defeating to attack Ken Salazar?


Hello? Amelia, Ter Ducken, Phoenix Rising.....
Where did y'all go?

Donald E. L. Johnson

Ted Olson, former Solictor General under Bush and a conservative lawyer who represented Bush (I Think) at the Supreme Ct. vs. Gore in 2000, quietly but firmly blasts the judge bashers and blockers on Thursday's WSJ editorial page.

I agree with him 100%.

Any legislator who lets Dobson and other radicals influence his vote is a loser an not a true Republican. Dobson only supports radicals who don't believe in the Constitution nor the historic legacy of separation of church and state. These guys are coming across as being so extreme, hateful and over the top, that they're jokes. And they are getting the credibility that jokesters deserve. Zero.

Phoenix Rising

^^^ What he said. ^^^


Now I've seen everything. Someone saying "what he said" about Don Johnson. Next comes the locusts.


Quote - "I like Jews and Catholics or Hispanics (I think it is unfair to group all Hispanics into a "Mexican" sterotype)"

So everyone is okay, except Mexicans?

As for Dobson - why is he pushing this issue so hard? Because these judges have the same warped sense of morality that he has. At least there are some Republicans who never signed the "Contract with Dobson", and are concerned about the use of the 'nuclear option'.

As for Democrats wanting Bush and Delay dead? Yeah, let's use that broad brush to paint all Democrats like a few radical freaks. Good thing no radical Repubs ever wished anyone dead (judges, abortion doctors, planned parenthood, any Clinton, muslims, Mexicans(?), etc.).


You guys on the Right need to stop whining about how Dems are trying to block 10 our of 214 judges! Stop listening to the propoganda and THINK. How many judicial nominies were blocked during the Clinton administration? Keith?


Y'all need to listen to the Rolling Stones, "you can't always get what you want . . ."

Donald E. L. Johnson

Here are the impact graphs from Theodore Olson's article, "Lay off our Judiciary:"

"But, absent lawlessness or corruption in the judiciary, which is astonishingly rare in this country, impeaching judges who render decisions we do not like is not the answer. Nor is the wholesale removal of jurisdiction from federal courts over such matters as prayer, abortion, or flag-burning. While Congress certainly has the constitutional power, indeed responsibility, to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts to ensure that judges decide only matters that are properly within their constitutional role and expertise, restricting the jurisdiction of courts in response to unpopular decisions is an overreaction that ill-serves the long-term interests of the nation. As much as we deplore incidents of bad judging, we are not necessarily better off with -- and may dislike even more -- adjudications made by presidents or this year's majority in Congress.

Calls to investigate judges who have made unpopular decisions are particularly misguided, and if actually pursued, would undermine the independence that is vital to the integrity of judicial systems. If a judge's decisions are corrupt or tainted, there are lawful recourses (prosecution or impeachment); but congressional interrogations of life-tenured judges, presumably under oath, as to why a particular decision was rendered, would constitute interference with -- and intimidation of -- the judicial process. And there is no logical stopping point once this power is exercised.

Which member of Congress, each with his or her own constituency, would ask what questions of which judges about what decisions? Imagine the kinds of questions asked routinely in confirmation or oversight hearings. How can those questions be answered about a pending or decided case? And what if a judge refused to testify and defend his reasoning about a particular decision? Would an impeachment or prosecution for contempt of Congress follow? Either would be unthinkable. Federal judges are highly unlikely to submit to such a demeaning process and, if push came to shove, the public would undoubtedly support the judges.

* * *

No discussion of the judiciary should close without reference to the shambles that the Senate confirmation process has become. It does no good to speculate about how or when the disintegration began, which political interest has been the most culpable, or the point at which the appointment of judges became completely dysfunctional. That sort of debate is both endless and futile. The only hope for an end to the downward spiral is for the combatants to lay down their arms; stop using judicial appointments to excite special-interest constituencies and political fund-raising; move forward with votes on qualified, responsible and respected nominees so that those who have the support of a majority of the Senate can be confirmed, as contemplated by the Constitution; and remove the rancor and gamesmanship from the judicial selection process.

We expect dignity, wisdom, decency, civility, integrity and restraint from our judges. It is time to exercise those same characteristics in our dealings with, and commentary on, those same judges -- from their appointment and confirmation, to their decision-making once they take office."

If you have a paid sub to wsj.com, the link is:


Daniel DiRito

Instead of merely attacking each other, wouldn't it be more productive if everyone found the conviction to clearly state and share the realities of their agenda without couching them in doublespeak?

Isn't it safe to say that Mr. Dobson wants to overturn Roe v. Wade...and is supportive of loading the courts with judges who will in fact do that? Can we also assume he would like to ban any societal legitimization or recognition of any homosexual relationships? He would ban adoption or foster parenting by gays, he would ban any positive mention of homosexuality in school education. Isn't his bottom line that he wants the country to run consistent with his religious beliefs that are based on a fundamental interpretation of the Bible (albeit selective...my own opinion)?

If we assume Mr. Dobson stands for these principles, then there is only one simple question to ask yourself...do you agree or not? If you do, then pretty much anything Sen. Ken Salazar says that is inconsistent with that agenda will elicit condemnation and be met with relentless attacks. This holds true for any other politician who doesn't support Mr. Dobson's agenda.

On the other hand, Democrats generally support the "RIGHT" to have an abortion, some legitimization of homosexuals and their relationships in order to prevent discriminatory hardships, continued adoption and foster parenting rights for gays (except for Texas apparently), and a general belief that church and state remain separate.

If you assume that Sen. Salazar stands for these principles, then you either agree with him or you don't. If you agree with him, then pretty much whatever Mr. Dobson says will be met with condemnation and relentless attacks. This holds true for any other religious figures who disagree with the Democrat's agenda.

Once everyone picks sides (as seems to be the case with most Americans) you have what we now have...consistent gridlock supported by absolutist thinking, intolerance, and personal attacks.

The truth of the matter is that we are locked in extremist rhetoric. Resolutions never come out of such an environment. The issue of abortion isn't going to be resolved by merely determining whether it is legal or illegal to have one. It's not that simple. None of the issues are that simple.

One thing is simple, until we have a reasonable dialogue, there will be no real resolution...just more power skirmishes in hopes of gaining the upper hand and cramming ones agenda down the throat of the opposition.

Hmmm...seems I recall a situation similar to this some 200 plus years ago...where was that??

Donald E. L. Johnson

Daniel DeRito's comments are echoed and expanded upon by conservative columnist, Charles Krauthammer, whose columns also appear in the Rocky. Here's a link to is Washington Post column:


His impact graphs follow:

"Let us have a bit of sanity here. One of the glories of American democracy is the independence of the judiciary. The deference and reverence it enjoys are priceless assets. The Supreme Court is the only institution that could have ended the Bush-Gore fiasco of 2000 with the immediacy, finality and, yes, legitimacy that it did. (True, liberals, who for half a century employed judicial fiat to enact their political agenda, have been whining for five years about this particular judicial exercise. But the critical point is that, whine or not, the ruling was accepted as law.) Moreover, and more generally, judicial independence and supremacy are necessary checks on the tyranny of popular majorities.

Have that independence and supremacy been abused? Grossly. What other advanced democracy would radically legalize abortion by judicial decree rather than by democratic will expressed through legislatures or referendums? What sane democracy allows four unelected robed eminences in Massachusetts to revolutionize the very definition of marriage, the most ancient institution in society?

This is not just deeply undemocratic. It is politically crazy. Democracies work as stable social entities because when people are allowed to settle issues themselves by debate and ballot, they are infinitely more likely to accept the results when they lose. To deny them that participation is to risk instability and threaten social peace."

The comments to this entry are closed.