| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Judicial nominees (Filibusters) | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 23 2005, 07:01 PM (236 Views) | |
| Fesarius | May 23 2005, 07:01 PM Post #1 |
|
Admiral
|
-- Senators announce deal on judicial nominees, aimed at averting showdown vote over filibusters. Watch CNN or log on to http://CNN.comfor the latest news. More Americans watch CNN. More Americans trust CNN. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | May 23 2005, 07:05 PM Post #2 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
Isn't it about time they changed that slogan? Seriously, it's good that the Senate is trying to compromise. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | May 23 2005, 07:08 PM Post #3 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ Yes, they ought to change it. I recall 38957 saying that he did not agree with that part of my posts when I post about CNN.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| UncleSlickhead | May 23 2005, 07:13 PM Post #4 |
![]()
High Priest of the Church of the Blalock's Booty
|
If we change the CNN slogan, it'll have to be something really good. CNN: Strong enough for a man, but made for a woman. CNN: The sniffling, sneezing, coughing, aching, stuffy head, fever, so-you-can-rest news channel. CNN: Breathable and secure, with an odor control core. So you feel fresh all day long. And then when the network expands, like ESPN did... CNN 2: This time, it's personal. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| psyfi | May 23 2005, 07:14 PM Post #5 |
|
psyfi
|
I'm trying to get more details on this deal but so far it sounds like a major sham. The Senate is going to allow votes on three of the nominees and that is that. The Dems said that they will only use the filibuster for extraordinary conditions which since they think all of those they don't want are extraordinary right-wingers, seems to mean that they will keep on doing as they have done. What kind of compromise is that? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| UncleSlickhead | May 23 2005, 07:22 PM Post #6 |
![]()
High Priest of the Church of the Blalock's Booty
|
Slow your roll a little, psyfi. Keep in mind that Bush has gotten through 208 of the 218 judges he's nominated. Clinton didn't get anything like that kind of percentage for his nominees. The problem with this whole judge thing isn't that the Democrats hate all of Bush's nominees. What it all boils down to is that Democrats believe the Republicans have been changing the rules in order to help get some of Bush's less appealing nominees on the bench. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| psyfi | May 23 2005, 07:39 PM Post #7 |
|
psyfi
|
Regarding percentages, we went through this on another thread. In the Appellate Court, Clinton got through about 75 percent of his people and Bush has gotten through about 69 percent. So really, there is some making up to do. Changing the rules is right, exactly right. All we are talking about is the constitutional right of the majority to make rule changes. Tough if the Democrats don't like it. It is allowed by the Constitution. It's not illegal. The Democrats biggest supporters are organizations like People for the American Way and the ACLU who are currently on a Secular Jihad to tighten the noose on both historical and current religious expressions while simultaneously flinging away any and all restrictions on abortion and disallowing any monitoring of said. These issues are what it is all about, stacking the courts with those who want the Jihad or those that will stop it. I"m on the side of those that will stop it. Apparently so are the American People since they have put a Republican in as President, voted in a majority Republican House and a majority Republican Senate. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| UncleSlickhead | May 23 2005, 08:01 PM Post #8 |
![]()
High Priest of the Church of the Blalock's Booty
|
208/218 comes out to over 95%. And the 208 is a hard number. And let's not act like Georgie-Boy got a mandate from the people. He didn't even win the popular vote in his first election. As for the ACLU and groups like it, Secular Jihad seems a little extreme (though it's probably not). Besides, the government should do nothing that makes it seem to support one particular religion over any others. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| psyfi | May 23 2005, 08:11 PM Post #9 |
|
psyfi
|
Look at the percentages for the Appellate Court; they are different. I can't recall what thread the link is on; maybe the thread about the Rabbi. But there is the difference I mentioned. The first election is over. The second election was basically a landslide if you compare it to the numbers that got Clinton in office and note the fact that the Dems lost big in Congress. To me, and to most conservative judges, the establishment clause does NOT mean that the government should do nothing that makes it seem to support one religion over any other. This interpretation is the Jihadists' call to morning prayer. This is the interpretation of activist judges. They've had their say and the reason that they don't want Bush's nominees in office is because they know that there are loads and loads and loads of judges out there who disagree with them and do not interpret the establishment clause this way. And so we have the great commission to stop as many conservative judges as possible. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| UncleSlickhead | May 24 2005, 03:25 PM Post #10 |
![]()
High Priest of the Church of the Blalock's Booty
|
Here's something for you, psy...Look over this. In this instance, the Democrats have been more cooperative than should be expected of them. And to be quite honest, they have every reason to concerned with some of Bush's nominees. William G. Myers III has never even been a judge. He's a long time former lobbyist for the coal and cattle industries. 21 of his 59 appellate and Federal Claims nominations since 2001 were lawyers or lobbyists for the oil, gas, and energy industries. Does this not raise certain questions of objectivity? As for the religion question: Our government CANNOT show favoritism. What if the government suddenly began leaning toward Islam? It won't happen , but you get my point. When the government begins to demonstrate support for a specific religion, it takes its first step on a slippery slope to the establishment of an legal recognized national form of worship. And that is a disastrous outcome. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | May 24 2005, 04:51 PM Post #11 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
True, as fewer Americans watch CNN, even though it is in more households than any other cable news station. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | May 24 2005, 04:52 PM Post #12 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Comment: We address public officials by their actual names, not by nicknames. There was quite a stir in here last summer over this. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| psyfi | May 24 2005, 06:28 PM Post #13 |
|
psyfi
|
Here is what it comes down to. Those in Power rule and the Republicans had better decide to use their power because the court needs more conservative judges. I disagree with your article, most especially the idea that because the Republicans had a President in power and a majority in the House the Dems couldn't be responsible for the coarsening of American values and cultures. This presumes all this happened in the last few years, but it hasn't. It began, in my opinion, with decisions made in the Madeline Murray O'Hare case and proceeded for quite awhile without many people even realizing what was happening. Regarding Myers, I don't know if he is or is not qualified but I do know this, as the minority party, the Dems can have their say as to why he shouldn't be appointed; perhaps they will sway some Republicans to their side. Perhaps they will not. But the Republicans have it in their power to make sure that the guy gets an up or down vote and they had better get the backbone to do this because more conservative and less activist judges are needed which brings us to the religion question. Regarding religion, you argue that it would be wrong for our government to show favoritism because this places on a slippery slope toward some sort of nationally recognized religion which would be disastrous. I do think that the establishment clause makes it clear that some sort of Federal Church is NOT constitutional. There is no gap between conservatives and liberals on this matter. The difference comes in when the liberals want to then go on to say that the establishment clause also means many other things such as the fact that the founding fathers wanted teachers to silence some kid who reads a bible verse as part of his class project, or that the words "under God' have to come out of the Pledge and so forth. The establishment clause is NOT about showing favoritism to a particular religion, it is about not establishing a State Church PERIOD. If a government official wants to stand up every day and twice on Sunday and mention Jesus or God or Satan or Hare Krishna, he has every right in the world to do it because he is an American citizen and as such he has a right to free speech regardless of whether its content is religious. If the people of a given community want to put up some monument containing the Ten Commandments or erect a statue to Lucifer Himself on public property, they have every right to make this religious expression, etc. This is the conservative interpretation of the establishment clause and this is why the Dems, supported by liberal public interest groups, want to stop conservative judges from getting appointed. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| UncleSlickhead | May 24 2005, 06:46 PM Post #14 |
![]()
High Priest of the Church of the Blalock's Booty
|
The words 'under God' were not originally in the Pledge of Allegiance. Now, if a community wants to memorialize the Ten Commandments, that's fine. However, if a group objects to said memorial, they deserve to have their opinion heard without being called godless heathens, or being accused of breaking down the moral fabric of this nation. If a judge dismisses this kind of case, he sets a precedent. That precedent makes it easier to set similar precedents in the future. Before you know it, you have an official U.S. Religion, and it may not be yours. Of course, in the same vein, you can't stop a child from saying a silent prayer during his school's moment of silence in the morning. The government also can't be allow the perception that it is AGAINST any particular religion. Oh, and the political party in power only rules at the behest of its constituents. Both parties would do well to keep that in mind. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| psyfi | May 24 2005, 08:50 PM Post #15 |
|
psyfi
|
It doesn’t matter that the words 'under God' were not originally in the Pledge of Allegiance. In 1954, the Representatives of The People of the United States of America put the phrase in the Pledge. The People have therefore spoken. The fact that a minority of the people don’t want it, feel offended by it, and so forth is totally irrelevant. Freedom of speech means that people are going to sometimes get offended, angry, incensed, miffed, and upset by what they hear. We don’t have to worry about an official U.S. Religion because this is not allowed by the establishment clause. I would also point out that children have the right to not only say a silent prayer but also the right to say a, loud, culturally-insensitive and obnoxious prayer You are, however, totally correct about the need for political parties to keep in mind that they rule at the behest of their constituents. Given that the Democrats’ numbers are dwindling and I believe in part because of their stance on issues such as the one we are addressing, they better pay special attention to this fact.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2



You are, however, totally correct about the need for political parties to keep in mind that they rule at the behest of their constituents. Given that the Democrats’ numbers are dwindling and I believe in part because of their stance on issues such as the one we are addressing, they better pay special attention to this fact.

2:07 PM Jul 11