|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 11:05 am
Well...being an Evangelical Christian I feel I have something to say.
I am so disappointed that we had to come to this point. But you know what? Things like Roe v. Wade should be taken away, and homosexual union should never arise as a valid institution. We need to make sure the flag is honored in the Constitution, and that the lives of the unborn, as well as those of the chronically disabled, should be protected.
We will get none of those things without strong, Christian conservatives in our courts.
Our courts today are riddled with activist, liberal judges who repeatedly rule against decency, morality, and patriotism. They rule for people who are immoral and not deserving of the measure of justice they recieve.
However, liberals in Congress are trying to keep it this way! They are content with the corrupt and unclean system we have today.
That is why we must, with all expediency, and using our majority, use the option that has been demonized by the left as "the nuclear option".
It should not be called the "nuclear option". It should be called the "excising option" or the "healing option".
Only then can we have sense in our courts.
Any comments???
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 7:38 pm
The fact that it has come down to this at all tells me that unless we as voters do something severe to change the climate in Washington, there isn't much chance of anything improving.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 8:43 pm
german_bar_wench The fact that it has come down to this at all tells me that unless we as voters do something severe to change the climate in Washington, there isn't much chance of anything improving. Amen, sister! A good witness. What kind of things can we do to change the climate? Allow me to suggest one. We should perhaps bring the outlying Republicans back into line. But how can we do this? Does anyone have an idea? It seems easily said, but hardly done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 10:42 pm
Apostrophic, it's in fact the very ideological diversity that led me to the Republican Party. I support the restriction on filibusters, but not for the same reasons that you do. One has to wonder, though, if reports about the Democrats breaking the compromise agreement right off the bat won't in fact help bring about the end ... If so, would you be willing to think that as harmful as it looks, the Republicans actually knew that this would happen and thus accepted your criticisms as the price of building broader ideological support for any restriction on filibusters? (Translated: "Temporarily piss off your base by appearing weak in hopes of strengthening THEIR spine, allowing you to get away with showing the same.") Strategery to me is not a bad word, but instead a good word. Not an inference to presidential incompetence, but instead a compliment about grand strategy ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 11:59 pm
I think the use of the filibuster against nominees is something of an abuse of the filibuster privilage. The May 21st The Economist sums it up nicely, Quote: There is a difference between the more common legislative filibuster and the judicial filibuster at the heart of the current shakedown. Legislative filibusters are used to force the majority to reshape laws. But a filibuster over a nominee is a zero-sum game: you cannot change the shape of a person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 2:41 am
Kazuma I think the use of the filibuster against nominees is something of an abuse of the filibuster privilage. The May 21st The Economist sums it up nicely, Quote: There is a difference between the more common legislative filibuster and the judicial filibuster at the heart of the current shakedown. Legislative filibusters are used to force the majority to reshape laws. But a filibuster over a nominee is a zero-sum game: you cannot change the shape of a person. Precisely put. The legislative filibuster is a tool in the sense that a chisel is a tool for a sculptor. A person is who he is, and cannot be shaped. Up or down votes on the person, who is who he is, is common sense. Legislation is instead a formative process which is in progress, while nominees are already formed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:29 am
german_bar_wench Kazuma I think the use of the filibuster against nominees is something of an abuse of the filibuster privilage. The May 21st The Economist sums it up nicely, Quote: There is a difference between the more common legislative filibuster and the judicial filibuster at the heart of the current shakedown. Legislative filibusters are used to force the majority to reshape laws. But a filibuster over a nominee is a zero-sum game: you cannot change the shape of a person. Precisely put. The legislative filibuster is a tool in the sense that a chisel is a tool for a sculptor. A person is who he is, and cannot be shaped. Up or down votes on the person, who is who he is, is common sense. Legislation is instead a formative process which is in progress, while nominees are already formed. Indeed. And it isn't as if the Republicans wanted to completely take away the filibuster either. My understanding was that they only wanted to remove the filibuster in regards to nominees, not revoke the legislative filibuster. The Democrats weren't in a particular hurry to clarify that point, All that we really heard from them was notions that their rights were being taken away, which is not exactly so. The Constitution says nothing about a filibuster: it is a rule adopted by the Senate. The most the Constitution says on the matter is that the Senate can make the rules by which the body operates. It is not so much an inalienable right as it is a tradition. This is why those who supported revoking filibuster in regards to nominees are more inclined to refer to it as the "constitutional option" rather then the more emotionally charged "nuclear option" prefered by the Democrats and much of the media.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 4:44 am
Kazuma german_bar_wench Kazuma I think the use of the filibuster against nominees is something of an abuse of the filibuster privilage. The May 21st The Economist sums it up nicely, Quote: There is a difference between the more common legislative filibuster and the judicial filibuster at the heart of the current shakedown. Legislative filibusters are used to force the majority to reshape laws. But a filibuster over a nominee is a zero-sum game: you cannot change the shape of a person. Precisely put. The legislative filibuster is a tool in the sense that a chisel is a tool for a sculptor. A person is who he is, and cannot be shaped. Up or down votes on the person, who is who he is, is common sense. Legislation is instead a formative process which is in progress, while nominees are already formed. Indeed. And it isn't as if the Republicans wanted to completely take away the filibuster either. My understanding was that they only wanted to remove the filibuster in regards to nominees, not revoke the legislative filibuster. The Democrats weren't in a particular hurry to clarify that point, All that we really heard from them was notions that their rights were being taken away, which is not exactly so. The Constitution says nothing about a filibuster: it is a rule adopted by the Senate. The most the Constitution says on the matter is that the Senate can make the rules by which the body operates. It is not so much an inalienable right as it is a tradition. This is why those who supported revoking filibuster in regards to nominees are more inclined to refer to it as the "constitutional option" rather then the more emotionally charged "nuclear option" prefered by the Democrats and much of the media. Actually the word going around at one point was that it was not the Republicans who were going to remove the legislative filibuster but rather the Democrats who would remove it if the Republicans went "nuclear", "when the Democrats regain control of the Senate" (as if that will ever happen). there is an interesting article on Townhall by Bruce Bartlett about why the Democrats so long held a majority in the congress, and it isn't because of liberal policy. Its because Southern Democrats were largely conservatives. If the Democratic party believes that jamming up the works will regain them the support of the South and the other Republican areas, they are wrong. There will be people disappointed in spineless legislators, but the voters sure as hell aren't going to throw their support behind the Democratic Party. Most of us would rather see nothing at all get done than see the Democrats do what they would like to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
