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

Comments

Strider

The fact remains that Dems are objecting to 10 out of 214 judicial appointments. This is not a high percentage, somewhere around 5%.

"What sane democracy allows four unelected robed eminences in Massachusetts to revolutionize the very definition of marriage, the most ancient institution in society?"

What a load of ____ this is. Definitions of marriage are HIGHLY personal issues. This same columnist will no doubt talk about the glories of less government.

Sometimes you will agree with judges and someimtes you will not. Just because a judges ruling happens to offend a section of the population that is IMO bigoted against homosexuals does not mean that we should change a system that has been in place since our countries inception.

When courts are faced with cases where the laws are not specific enough then they MUST use personal judgement. That is their job.

If a vast majority of people find the ruling offensive then they have the option of going to the Legislative Branch and CHANGE the law. That is how it works.

But the Neocon attack on the judiciary is NOT about this. Neocons are having a very hard time getting the masses to change the laws they want changed, so what do they do? They make an end run around the system. They place judges that will subvert the will of the people (whose voice is the legislature) themselves.

You tell me who is being more democratic here? This is an attack on the people.

"Can't change the law through the Legislative branch? Get judges who will do it for you!" Deny a filibuster and stop the other party from having any say in the process.

Power. It is all Neocons care about.

Daniel DiRito

David Brooks made a similar argument in the New York Times...he argues that Roe v. Wade should be overturned since it wasn't resolved legislatively.

On the contrary, it is politics that should be overturned. To overturn Roe v. Wade would be akin to the prohibition experience. Just as alcohol comsumption continued, so too would abortions. Hence, reality cannot be overturned. This was clearly understoond by Justice Blackmun and the Supreme Court.

Brooks and Krauthammer contend that if we overturn Roe v. Wade, a reasoned democratic debate will ensue. I ask on what basis can one make such an assertion? Isn't it the responsibility of elected officials to lead such civil debates? Until 'politicians' and others in leadership positions act responsibly, there can be no reasonable debate. Overturning Roe v. Wade in todays wholly partisan and absolutist environment would only further advance the growing trend towards political, cultural, and social anarchy.

It's time for politicians, op-ed writers, and Americans to step back from the poisonous rhetoric and embrace the wisdom and legitimacy of our longstanding three part government. It's not perfect, but it has worked well for 200 plus years.

Abortions should not be glamorized and at the same time they should not be criminalized. Only through leadership can the middle ground be found. Our constitution is the "root" that must never be killed. The status quo of politics must be aborted. Only then can life, with all its complexities, be affirmed.

learnedhand

Good to see a Dem push back against the Radical Cleric James Dobson and his Theo-Con brethren. It is especially gratifying since Salazar is a Catholic and Radical Cleric James Dobson and his far right brethren have a special hatred for Catholics. Sure they'll use them as political pawns to gain votes but that doesn't mean the Theo-Cons don't despise the Catholic's in the same way that they despise the Muslims and Jews.

Donald E. L. Johnson

I'm not sure Brooks advocated over turning Roe, although that probably is his position. Instead, I recall that he quoted someone who said that if Roe hadn't come down, the whole abortion thing would have worked itself out. He and others contend that Roe put the left on the slide to irrelevance because it rallied the conservatives who've proved to be more successful at the polls than the left has been during the last 30 years. Without Roe, the conservatives wouldn't have attracted so many anti-abortionists to their ranks.

What bugs me is that so many anti-abortionists aren't fiscally conservative nor nationalistic Republicans. They Republicans in drag who like socialized medicine, welfare, big government intervention in their lives and even peace at any price, including giving into the terrorists.

If they ever win the anti-abortion crusade, they'll regress into Dems almost overnight.

Donald E. L. Johnson

strider,
I think you'll find that the Dems are blocking a huge percentage of nominees to appeals courts, which makes your numbers misleading.

One reason I have voted for Bush is that I've counted on the Dems to block anti-abortion judicial nominees. But now I'm thinking that the Dems are wrong to block people because of their religious beliefs, because, as Olson and Krauthammer say, that leads us down the dangerous slippery slope.

So, my feeling is that the Dems are as much to blame for the GOP's blasting them for anti-Christian politics as the Republicans are. The Dems created the bulls eye by blocking nominees because of their religious beliefs, and tragically, the religious radicals are shooting at it with pretty good effect.

Both sides are to blame for shameful conduct and need to cut it out, don't you think?

Don

Brittany

Because of the unique nature of our ministry, we are concerned that our employees be committed to the Christian perspective as explained in our Statement of Faith. All of our employees are involved in times of prayer for the specific needs of our constituents and the ministry. They also actively participate in department devotions and company-wide chapel services.To help us evaluate our compatibility, please take a moment to answer the following questions. Thank you for sharing with us.Are you currently attending church? Yes NoIf yes, what is the name of your church?_______________________________________________________________What is your pastor’s name?________________________________________________________________________In what ways are you involved in your church and/or other Christian organizations?__________________________________________________________________________________________________

This is copied directly from the FOF employment application.
So I think that the claim of Jews working at FOF is greatly innacurate.
I think Dr. Dobson would immediately go to meet his Maker ( which apparently is very different from the One I know) if her found out.

learnedhand

" But now I'm thinking that the Dems are wrong to block people because of their religious beliefs,"

of course many, many people of faith have already been approved by the Dems in the Senate. Don't be fooled into believing that these few nominees who are facing the fillibuster are the ONLY people of faith that Bush has put forward.

From thinkprogress.org here is a list of already approved nominees who are people of faith....
http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=701

Judge Jay Bybee of the 9th Circuit Court: “a returned missionary of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and a legal scholar who has been on the fast track since he was a Hinckley scholar at Brigham Young University.” [Source]

Judge D. Brooks Smith of the 3rd Circuit Court: In 2000, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Alttona-Johnstown (PA) awarded Judge D. Brooks Smith the Prince Gallitzen. Established in 1990, the award is given to those who “exemplify in their discipleship the evangelizing characteristics of the Reverend Priest and Prince Demetrius Augustine Gallitzin. These men and women through their lives and ministry in the Church have been a light to those around them.” [Source]

Judge Richard C. Wesley of the 2nd Circuit Court: Judge Wesley has been a member of the Board of Trustees of United Church of Livonia. [Source]

Judge Roger L. Gregory of the 4th Circuit Court: A biography on Gregory wrote that his parents taught him that “hard work and a strong belief in God would help him go far.” Also, “his strong faith and deep desire to learn filled his mind with a love for the law and filled his heart with a love for people.” Furthermore, he is quoted as saying, “Fear may trouble your mind for a moment, but faith will sustain your heart for a lifetime.” [Source]

Judge Julia Smith Gibbons of the 6th Circuit Court: In her USDOJ bio, Judge Gibbons is described as “an elder at her church and a former President of the Memphis Rotary Club.” [Source]

Judge Diane S. Sykes of the 7th Circuit Court: On Feb. 20th, 2005, Sykes addressed the St. Thomas More Society after the annual Red Mass. She recalled an experience in which she told her legal colleagues, “You and I have important work to do, maintaining ethical standards” and then continued on to “advise the audience ‘not to put out the Spirit (quoting Eph:10). Against such things there is no law. There is the Holy Spirit in our lives.’” [Source]

District Judge J. Leon Holmes: “In a 2002 address to the Society of Catholic Social Scientists in Ann Arbor, Mich., Holmes questioned the legitimacy of church-state separation, noting that ‘we are left with some unease about this notion that Christianity and the political order should be assigned to separate spheres.’ He went on to observe that ‘Christianity transcends the political order and cannot be subordinated to the political order.’ Suggesting that eventually religion and government would be one he said ‘the final reunion of Church and state will take place at the end of time, when Christ will claim definitive political power of all creation, inaugurating an entirely new society based on the supernatural.’” [Source]

learnedhand

"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?

STOP WHINING!

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

but you are missing THE key distinction between this current group of Theo-Cons and those that came before them. Whereas those of us who have participated in this Democractic-Republic in the past have understood that politics is the art of compromise this current group of Theo-Cons is not satisfied with anything less than TOTAL victory, democratic principles and republican history be damned.

learnedhand

"strider,
I think you'll find that the Dems are blocking a huge percentage of nominees to appeals courts, which makes your numbers misleading."

care to share your numbers and statistics?

It seems to me that if the numbers strider quoted were so egregiously false, as you contend, the Republican Congressional leadership would be making a lot of noise to get their side of the statistics made public.

of course that hasn't happened. I still have never heard a Republican Congressional leader contest the numbers that Harry Reid and the Dems have put forward. I've seen a few rightwing bloggers contest the numbers but never anyone with actual statistics or credibility.

So, please share your numbers with us....

Ed

I generally enjoy this blog but when it turns in to political trash talk, beginning with the original post by the forum hosts and follows with the same from visistors, it ruins it for everyone. How about posting a review of the situation and provide commentary on who is winning this very bizarre war?

Two articles in the Rocky Mountain News this morning provide further insight. I'm surprised that Salazar's office would release the overall count of who's calling in support of the filibuster measure.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_3723559,00.html

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_3722715,00.html

Stygius

Yes. David Brooks did advocate over-turning Roe v. Wade in his April 21 column. His (ludicrous) argument is that the abortion debate wouldn't be so polarizing if it was played out in state legislatures.

Harry Blackmun and his colleagues suppressed that democratic abortion debate the nation needs to have. The poisons have been building ever since. You can complain about the incivility of politics, but you can't stop the escalation of conflict in the middle. You have to kill it at the root. Unless Roe v. Wade is overturned, politics will never get better.

It's a typical David Brooks mealy-mouthed red herring, of course. But there you have it.

Stygius

As for Salazar's "campaign promise," he did no such thing. This is what he told Rocky last September:

"I would hope all nominees get up or down votes," Salazar answered. "And the decision on an up-or-down vote should be based on whether or not the president's nominee is qualified for the position." He said a mandatory up-or-down confirmation vote on any nominee within 120 days of the nomination being submitted (an idea that Bush himself has advocated) "is a thoughtful proposal and maybe one that should be pursued."

This sounds like he wasn't enthusiastic about the filibuster, but he certainly wasn't making any promises -- let alone flip-flopping.

Donald E. L. Johnson

Learnedhand,
This Washington Post story says Democrats blocked 10 of 52 nominees to appeals courts, that's more than 20%. Pretty high percentage in my book.

Here's the Post story, which includes all the stats you want and the names of blocked an new nominees. Good reading:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/15/politics/15judges.html?hp&ex=11136 24000&en=0b42a55582cd9ab5&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Here's the key graph:

During Bush's first term, Democrats would did not allow a vote on 10 of the 52 appointments he made to fill vacancies on federal appeals courts. The overwhelming majority of Bush's 229 judicial nominees, however, were confirmed by the Senate. After the Republicans' Election Day gains, conservative groups have been increasing pressure on Senate Republicans to force votes on Bush judicial nominees. Senate Republicans are considering whether to employ a rare and highly controversial parliamentary maneuver -- dubbed the "nuclear option" -- to declare filibusters against judicial nominations unconstitutional.

Don

donald's old math teacher

Donald, 10 out of 52 would be slightly LESS than 20%. You know, seeing as 10 of 50 would be exactly 20%. And 20 of 100 is, as well. There's a pattern there...

For the record, 10 of 52 would be approximately 19.23077%

LATeach

Unlike Ed, I really enjoy a dose of political trash talk in the morning. The whole Salazar waffling or mind changing arguement is the point of representative gov't. I don't have the time or desire to spend everyday studying every issue. If I did I'd be the politician. I read and consider and listen and then vote for the candidate I think will make intelligent, well thought out choices that I'll mostly agree with. Sen Salazar has certainly made a choice or two I'm not thrilled with - So what? He's also made ones I do agree with.
When I disagree, I gripe. When I agree, I say so. That's my job.

Donald E. L. Johnson

Oops, LESS than 20%. One glass of wine and...

Thanks for the correction, old teach. (I hated math.)

Don

Donald E. L. Johnson

Correction:

Here is the correct link to the post story about Bush judicial nominees:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22384-2004Dec23.html

Don

Strider

The filibuster has been used on this same issue by Republicans in the past.

1968: The Abe Fortas appointment to succeed Earl Warren as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was derailed by Republicans through filibuster.

The Right will not be in the majority forever.

John Roberts

James Dobson is a creepy and vicous demagogue whose appeal is limited to the sick and stupid. His filth will not last.

Arnold Richards

What page is the Dobson dog beating chapter? I missed that in my edition. The "Sponge Bob" fiasco was based on a campaign that teaches homesexuality as being "normal" and that's all Dobson was saying. I use to be a crass liberal myself and as I read these posts of mis-information and name calling I am thankful for a worldview that is for the thinking person. These attacks are pathetic. No wonder why liberalism is dying a slow death. It is difficult to read the last gasps of something that showed some promise.

Ter Ducken

Actually, the SpongeBob thing was about kids being taught that it's okay to treat homosexuals with respect. You don't have to be a homosexual, just like you didn't have to be black in the 60s, to respect others. It's about being against discrimination, not about who is right or wrong.

And the death of liberalism? You've been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh. Look at the polls, my friend, and see what has happened here in Colorado. Conservatism is not carrying the day right now. Colorado is going Democratic, and GOP leaders are making fools of themselves, from Dobson to DeLay. I'd worry more about your own future than spew nonsense doomsday scenarios about liberals.

If your worldview is for a "thinking person," where people think about discrimination and decide, "that really is okay," well I'm glad I'm not a "thinking person." If "thinking people" think that their own agendas are the only agendas, and "the hell with any dissenting minority view," well, I'll stop thinking right now.

Look in the mirror, bub. You ARE what you hate.

Arnold Richards

To Ter,

Actually, the SpongeBob thing was about kids being taught that it's okay to treat homosexuals with respect.

I understand that- but why target kids?Why should kids know what homosexuality is? Why should a parent have to explain that to a pre-school child? Developmentally speaking there is age appropriate things that children should know. Why not show that ALL people are treated with respect- but there are people who have made choices that are not morally right. Just like Uncle Jimmy who is an alcholic, or Aunt Sarah who is in the midst of an affair. We are family- but we don't have to be enablers. Everyone is a sinner the problem is that people can change and the "Family" can help to accept these people as they are and offer help. That's what agape love is about.


You don't have to be a homosexual, just like you didn't have to be black in the 60s, to respect others. It's about being against discrimination, not about who is right or wrong.

Is it discrimination to say that the lifestyle is sin?

And the death of liberalism? You've been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh.

I do not tune in to Rush so little chance I have been listening to him. I have listened to the shrill voices of Al Franken,Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, and Harry Reid to recognize desperation.


Look at the polls, my friend, and see what has happened here in Colorado. (cool-polls are polls I subscribe to Zogby, read Gallup and media polls- it depends what the question of the day is. Polls are skewed and so I tend to see how people vote, what they say, what they post, and I see a young conservative viable generation looking for authenticity and they find it in traditional values.) Conservatism is not carrying the day right now. Colorado is going Democratic,(really? how so? I do see moderates making moves in the democratic party which I use to be a part of- but that seems a short-lived proposition if you look at what is really going on). and GOP leaders are making fools of themselves, from Dobson to DeLay.(Fools to you but not the majority that votes) I'd worry more about your own future than spew nonsense doomsday scenarios about liberals. ( I do and I worry about where we're going and I know why the Demsare hanging tightly to the judiciary- the voters can't touch it and it is the last part of the legislative branch that they can control.)
If your worldview is for a "thinking person," where people think about discrimination and decide, "that really is okay," well I'm glad I'm not a "thinking person." If "thinking people" think that their own agendas are the only agendas, and "the hell with any dissenting minority view," well, I'll stop thinking right now.
(That isn't the point- who is being disciminated against? It seems that the only discrimination we have is that people are telling conservatives that they will be ridiculed fortraditional family values. To call them racists, homophobic, and nuts is the real discrimination my friend. The most hated group in this country right now seems to be Traditionally minded Christians).

Look in the mirror, bub. You ARE what you hate.
(Yikes- please. Calm down bro)

Hillary

I agree with the author.
http://zocoor.cn/news1396.html tucson movies yahoo
http://zocoor.cn/news1059.html search yahoo.com mail
http://zocoor.cn/news1831.html yahoo currency conversions
http://zocoor.cn/news2.html msn server terra
http://zocoor.cn/news632.html outgoing mail server for yahoo

If my message is undesirable, write the address of the site on [email protected]

The comments to this entry are closed.