News To Fillibuster or Not To Fillibuster

[ComputerGeek]

What should the Dems do?

 

[loseyourname]

A politician should do what his conscience dictates. I haven't followed these hearings very thoroughly, so I don't have any personal opinion on whether Alito will make a good justice, but if some senator honestly believes in his heart of hearts that confirming him will do irreparable harm to the nation and voting against him isn't enough, then I suppose that senator should filibuster.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Alito is unsound on Presidential prerogatives.

The court will have to take up the issue of Bush's claim that he is entitled to ignore the bill of rights and the statutes on the law books just because he is president and we are in a "war". As Dahlia Lithwick noted at Slate a few days ago, there is no really applicable law to refer to on this question, the justices will (horror of horrors!) have to make up NEW law. And Alito's background and declared interests leads any reasonable observer to the conclusion that he will side with Bush on the issue. Therefore he is "bad for the country" in spades.

 

[russ_watters]

A politician should do what his conscience dictates. I haven't followed these hearings very thoroughly, so I don't have any personal opinion on whether Alito will make a good justice, but if some senator honestly believes in his heart of hearts that confirming him will do irreparable harm to the nation and voting against him isn't enough, then I suppose that senator should filibuster.

I vote unsure for those reasons.

But trying to construct a reciprocal scenario where I, as a Republican, had to decide on a Democratic nominee... Very little about Alito has been controvertial and he's qualified. So if I had to decide on a Democratic nominee who was qualified and so uncontrovertial he isn't even making the news every day, I don't think I could, in good conscience, vote against him.

My personal opinion of the judicial nomination process is that it's too politicized. Politicians vote along party lines for no other reason than to vote along party lines. Why? Unless a nominee is a bona-fide extremist (ie, the Alabama judge and his 10 Commandments), just having a political opinion (who doesn't?) that you don't agree with is not a good enough reason to oppose a nomination.

 

[SOS2008]

What should the Dems do?

As a minority, if the majority threatens to strip you of the filibuster, then it is already stripped from you. At that point you must consider the future and hope that there will be balance of power once more.

US Senate : Filibuster
From Kathy Gill,
Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events.

Senate Procedures

Republicans and Democrats alike have argued in favor or against the filibuster, depending upon their position (majority or minority).
----------
US Senate Republican leadership has publicly decried Democrat efforts to block Presidential nominations that require Senate approval. Senate leadership threatens to invoke a "nuclear option" which would ban the minority from blocking judicial nominees.
----------
The "nuclear option" which Republican leaders are threatening is actually a series of steps designed to bypass the two-thirds vote requirement to change rules.
----------
Involving both the President and the Senate in the nomination process was a compromise hammered out at the Constitutional Convention. CRS notes that "Those who defend the use of filibusters against nominations note that one of the dominant themes during debates on the Constitution was how to protect the rights of the minority, something a filibuster is designed to do."

Congressional scholars argue that a filibuster of a judicial nominee is critical because it ensures that a judge does not have an ideological bent -- helping ensure the independence of the judiciary as the third branch of government. It prevents a President from appointing partisan or ideological nominees when he and Senate leadership are from the same party.

Moreover, judges are appointed for life, so the decision to appoint a judge has long ramifications. The average tenure of a federal judge today is 24 years (that's four Senate terms, six Presidential terms or 12 House terms).
----------
…However, the filibuster is only one way that Senators can block a vote. For example, Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (UT) bottled Clinton judicial nominees "in committee" -- effectively denying them a vote on the Senate floor. The Judiciary Committee uses "blue slips" to obtain home state Senator opinion on the nominee; Hatch required two yes votes for Clinton nominees, but only one for Bush.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/i/filibuster_2.htm

So those of you who have Democratic representatives, you should contact them and let them know you support the blocking of Alito via "in committee" and "blue slips" if they aren't already planning such an alternative effort?

Long live our system of checks and balances in the United States!

 

[Dawguard]

The poll has skewed options. The second option, (No, he is well qualified and that is all teh senate should care about) is contrasted to the first and implies that, even though he is qualified he is not good for the country. Perhaps I'm reading to much into this, but it should say, No, he is not a threat to anything in the country. This would have been my choice.

 

[ComputerGeek]

The poll has skewed options. The second option, (No, he is well qualified and that is all teh senate should care about) is contrasted to the first and implies that, even though he is qualified he is not good for the country. Perhaps I'm reading to much into this, but it should say, No, he is not a threat to anything in the country. This would have been my choice.

The ONLY thing that Alito supporters have said about him is that he is a well qualified judge based on his credentials. that is all they have to support him.

 

[Dawguard]

The ONLY thing that Alito supporters have said about him is that he is a well qualified judge based on his credentials. that is all they have to support him.

Then you obviously haven't listened to many of his supporters. Sure, you've got the big-name supporters who speak in bumper-sticker talk and sound bites: in this instance you're right. However, they don't represent all of his supporters, and are a relatively small number. I suggest you research it a little bit more before making such a sweeping statement.

 

[SOS2008]

Then you obviously haven't listened to many of his supporters. Sure, you've got the big-name supporters who speak in bumper-sticker talk and sound bites: in this instance you're right. However, they don't represent all of his supporters, and are a relatively small number. I suggest you research it a little bit more before making such a sweeping statement.

Qualifications in terms of experience, intelligence, etc., are the minimum expectation. That a conservative president nominates a conservative judge is also to be expected. Is Alito a threat to the country? If he is so conservative that he is an ideologue outside the mainstream, yes he is a threat and should not be appointed for life on the Supreme Court. What I have read indicates he therefore is not an appropriate candidate.

 

[BobG]

There's a difference between a majority decision and a consensus decision. In the first, the attitude is that the winner wins - screw the losers. The second at least gets some buy in from the loser. When there's a good chance the roles will switch periodically, it's not too good to completely ignore the concerns of your opponent even when you have the majority.

The filibuster tends to encourage consensus decisions vs. majority decisions. It also tends to keep things centered politically - the extremes of either party can't take over. There's still significant groups that are disappointed, but, being so politically different from each other, they can't unite to do anything about it.

Unfortunately, Bush's political base is made up of extremists and they are the most powerful group in the Republican Party. It's pretty rare for extremists to dominate one of the parties. The traditional model doesn't work for extremists in normal times, so there's no penalty for destroying it. This is the only chance for the right wing of the party to get what they want in their lifetime - to them, it will be worth wrecking the traditional model that keeps Congress politically centered.

In fact, this year might be their last chance. It's not a question of whether or not Republicans will lose seats in Congress this fall - it's just a question of whether they lose enough to lose the majority. Even if Republicans survive this election, we have to survive two more years of Bush. That means there's a good chance that Republicans will lose more seats in the 2008 election and that would definitely swing the majority over to the Democrats.

That means the "nuclear option" is a ticking bomb for most Republicans. It would be stupid to utilize it in a year where they have the chance of becoming the minority. If extremist Democrats ever wanted to finally see their goals realized, a filibuster that spurs the "nuclear option" immediately before Democrats take over the majority is their dream come true.

In any event, there are normally things that damp political swings to keep US policy somewhat stable. If you kill off those things, we wind up with undamped motion - US policy will swing from right wing to left wing to right wing endlessly, which makes it hard for people to predict what is going to happen in their future. If you think Congress does a bad job now, just wait until after we eliminate the filibuster.

 

[Dawguard]

Qualifications in terms of experience, intelligence, etc., are the minimum expectation. That a conservative president nominates a conservative judge is also to be expected. Is Alito a threat to the country? If he is so conservative that he is an ideologue outside the mainstream, yes he is a threat and should not be appointed for life on the Supreme Court. What I have read indicates he therefore is not an appropriate candidate.

Compare that to:

From what you know about Samuel Alito, as a Supreme Court Justice, do you think he would be too liberal, too conservative, or just about right?


Too liberal
6
Too conservative
29
About right
49
No opinion
15

Based on what you have heard or read about him, do you think Alito’s views on important issues are in the mainstream or do you think they are too extreme?

Mainstream
52
Too extreme
30
No opinion
19

This is from a USAToday/CNN Gallup poll, I doubt you would consider it biased or skewed. Here's the link in case you think I'm just making this up, http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/2006-01-09-poll.htm. The Alito poll is quite a ways down from the top of the page, but it's there.
Now, this poll leaves only two options. One, the majority of people that think he is mainstream and are deluded idiots who don't know what they're talking about: you and you alone know the truth. Two, he actually is mainstream! So you tell me, which is it?

 

[russ_watters]

Something I didn't go into before - the purely political ramifications of a filibuster:

Even if Dems think that Alito should not be confirmed, blocking his confirmation would have negative political consequences for them unless they can convince the public that he's so far off in right field that it is worth the filibuster. Otherwise it just looks like partisan bellyaching and obstructionism. So the purpose of the hearings (to the dems) is to try to generate controversy on which to base a block. Since they have failed to generate that controversy, the negative ramifications of blocking a candidate that few people have serious problems with will not be worth it.

 

[SOS2008]

I agree BobG on all that you said except to remember that the Dems have had majority power for a very long time before now, yet did not abuse the power by exercising the "nuclear option." I agree with Russ how the Dems must consider public opinion and keep their eyes on the ball for the longer term (as unfortunate as that may be). In regard to public opinion, I ask Dawguard – Do you think most Americans have even a minimal understanding of parliamentary procedure, and how the filibuster tradition in the Senate is important to retain checks and balances, etc.? Because I very much doubt they do—they have been bombarded with propaganda and are tired of hearing about controversy in the news.

I will remind people that there was a list of conservative judges suggested by the Dems for purposes of cooperative appointment. In other words, they have acknowledged Bush’s right to appoint a conservative judge. But Bush has refused to reach across the aisle repeatedly, and continues to cater to his base, the religious right. For those of you who may not have noticed, the religious right IS extreme, and just the fact that people like Pat Robertson has a smile on his face when Alito’s name is mentioned tells it all.

 

[BobG]

Something I didn't go into before - the purely political ramifications of a filibuster:

Even if Dems think that Alito should not be confirmed, blocking his confirmation would have negative political consequences for them unless they can convince the public that he's so far off in right field that it is worth the filibuster. Otherwise it just looks like partisan bellyaching and obstructionism. So the purpose of the hearings (to the dems) is to try to generate controversy on which to base a block. Since they have failed to generate that controversy, the negative ramifications of blocking a candidate that few people have serious problems with will not be worth it.

That depends. I think they won't filibuster, but it could still be a legitimate strategy even if it generated some short term negatives.

If you had an extreme segment of the left that could impose the same party discipline DeLay was able to impose for so long, getting the other party to gut the filibuster rule right before your party took over the majority would be worth it. People will forget the Alito nomination fight, but killing filibusters is forever.

In the real world, it won't happen. Moderate Dems won't support a filibuster. It's not to their advantage to risk having things pulled too far to the left when the natural state of things is already somewhere near where they want to be.

Additionally, the Democratic Party tends to be a noisy, raucous place and every once in a while, the extreme left manages to get one of theirs nominated for president, even if they lose the general election (at least relatively speaking, unless you think a person has to be Communist to be extreme left). Having some voice, there's not as big a pay-off for extreme measures.

The religious right has tended to be teased by Republican candidates, then ignored once the candidate's elected, which is why any option is viable for them.

 

[phcatlantis]

What should the Dems do?

Filibuster. I want to see the nuclear option play out.

 

[SOS2008]

Filibuster. I want to see the nuclear option play out.

Yes, let's do it.

That means the "nuclear option" is a ticking bomb for most Republicans. It would be stupid to utilize it in a year where they have the chance of becoming the minority. If extremist Democrats ever wanted to finally see their goals realized, a filibuster that spurs the "nuclear option" immediately before Democrats take over the majority is their dream come true.

 

[phcatlantis]

Yes, let's do it.

Yes, let's. Anyone want to take bets on whether the Dems will reclaim the House? Even so, the GOP still controls the White House until 2008? Anyone want to take bets on whether the Dems secure a veto-proof majority in either House? Both?

 

[BobG]

Yes, let's. Anyone want to take bets on whether the Dems will reclaim the House? Even so, the GOP still controls the White House until 2008? Anyone want to take bets on whether the Dems secure a veto-proof majority in either House? Both?

Not planning to be around after 2008?

 

[Gokul43201]

If the Dems do pull off a filibuster (which they won't...there's too many senators in bright-red states that won't take the risk), I doubt the Republicans will go nuclear. My reason : I don't think Trent Lott would watch idly as Bill Frist's pet project wins the Republicans a big one. There's just too much bad blood between those two.

 

[Dawguard]

In regard to public opinion, I ask Dawguard – Do you think most Americans have even a minimal understanding of parliamentary procedure, and how the filibuster tradition in the Senate is important to retain checks and balances, etc.? Because I very much doubt they do—they have been bombarded with propaganda and are tired of hearing about controversy in the news.

In other words, the public don't know what they're talking about. They're delibertaly turning a blind eye to the truth. You few intellegent people, you elite group, you alone understand what is really going on. Since the people are to stupid to be trusted I guess we should abandon democracy: the majority can't possibly understand enough to run a country. No, we're all just dumb, ignorant idiots. We should let you guys do whatever you want since we obviously don't have the mental capabilities you do.
Also, in regard to the right being extremist and corupting the courts, tilting it far out of the mainstream, I ask you one question. What of Briar, Ginsburg, Souter and the other liberal judges? I suppose you say that they're all in the mainstream, and it's only the conservitives that are extreme. After all, who could ever imagine an extreme liberal? Why, they don't exist, since they are all smart, fair-minded, intellegent people. No, its only those horrible religious people who can ever be extreme!

 

[SOS2008]

In other words, the public don't know what they're talking about. They're delibertaly turning a blind eye to the truth. You few intellegent people, you elite group, you alone understand what is really going on. Since the people are to stupid to be trusted I guess we should abandon democracy: the majority can't possibly understand enough to run a country. No, we're all just dumb, ignorant idiots. We should let you guys do whatever you want since we obviously don't have the mental capabilities you do.
Also, in regard to the right being extremist and corupting the courts, tilting it far out of the mainstream, I ask you one question. What of Briar, Ginsburg, Souter and the other liberal judges? I suppose you say that they're all in the mainstream, and it's only the conservitives that are extreme. After all, who could ever imagine an extreme liberal? Why, they don't exist, since they are all smart, fair-minded, intellegent people. No, its only those horrible religious people who can ever be extreme!

Don't put words in my mouth. Americans are tired of the conflict and want to move on to other matters, like gas prices or what ever is an obvious problem for them at the moment.

So skip the rant–-Do you believe most Americans understand the filibuster versus the nuclear option, and how this is important in view of our history and basic premises of checks and balances? They might if they were interested in it, and if they were given real information instead of propaganda.

As for the religious right, may I ask why religion is being mixed into government? The religious right is more than willing to plow under separation of church and state for their holy grail of making abortion illegal. Here a blind eye is turned.

 

[McGyver]

Why is Collusion (or Filibuster) Needed in Politics?

U.S. politics sure is an oximoron. In business, the government tries to go to great length in law to prohibit companies from sharing too much information with each other - so as to create a FIX over their marketplace. Thus, the rationale for the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and possibly also the Taft Hartley Act. Clearly, Congress and all the Courts have agreed that any "collusion" or acts by a group of businesses to control an industry or marketplace is NOT good for America. The Fed says it wants a free and open marketplace.

So if the above is true, why is it fully acceptable and lawful for entire party (group) of Congressmen or Senators to work together in concert to FIX legislation and FIX appointments to the USSC? Each should be working to represent the wishes of their constituents, and in accordance with their own philosophies and knowledge.

So is it OK for the Dems to filibuster? Yes, they have to, because the Repubs acted in a (collusive) manner to FIX the Senate vote. I wonder if all Americans could vote on Alito - how they would vote?

Alito seemed about as forthcoming a witness as did OJ Simpson. At least Simpson appeared to try to put on the glove. Alito was very evasive on the two most critical questions: Presidential powers and abortion. It is a SURE VOTE how Alito will vote on these two issues if put on the Bench. I can't believe the odacity and shame these idiot Repub spokespersons bring when they go on TV and say they don't know how Alito will vote!

I'll wage this: I'll give up my rights to privacy (like a have a chopice) like the Bush White House is insisting if Bush, Rove, and Chenney all agree to be first brought and questioned by a Grand Jury under consequence of perjury, PLUS, take a polygraph in front of the Grand Jury as to their intent in Iraq and with their request for these new Presidential powers. I mean, if they've been honest with us, it's no big deal. But if the intent of these new Presidential powers is really to MAINTAIN unlawful surveillance of strategists and advisors of Democrat candidates and the news media, then what Bush is asking for makes Watergate look like pre-school!

Trust us, he says!

 

[phcatlantis]

Not planning to be around after 2008?

Not bothering to predict 2008. No incumbants, strong potential GOP field, and a lot can change in two years.

 

[BobG]

Not bothering to predict 2008. No incumbants, strong potential GOP field, and a lot can change in two years.

The point is that it would be short sighted for Republicans to push for a tool that's only guaranteed to work for them for a year or two. Regardless of how the judicial vote turns out, the "Gang of fourteen" did a good thing by short-circuiting it last summer.

It's an option that would be bad in the long term for both parties - alternately, of course, since it's always good for the majority party. In other words, we'd suddenly see an effective Congress. They could make dramatic changes in the direction of the nation in a short amount of time, then turn around and make dramatic changes in the opposite direction. Having dramatic changes in US policy every few years pretty much defines an unstable government. Congress is supposed to work slow - major changes should be years in the making.

 

[ComputerGeek]

As for the religious right, may I ask why religion is being mixed into government? The religious right is more than willing to plow under separation of church and state for their holy grail of making abortion illegal. Here a blind eye is turned.

Hail Grand Iatolah Robertson

 

[phcatlantis]

As for the religious right, may I ask why religion is being mixed into government?

"Religion...mixed into government" is a pretty ambiguous statement, one I doubt the religious right would accept as a description of their aims without clarity of definition and severe qualification. Insofar as the religious right sees Establishment clause issues differently from you, I imagine its because they feel that is the best path, socially, politically and legally, for the country. On the other hand, don't you think random temper tantrums over your disagreements with conservatives deserve their own thread?

 

[phcatlantis]

Hail Grand Iatolah Robertson

"Ayatollah," and yes, Robertson is a learned Christian.

 

[ComputerGeek]

"Ayatollah," and yes, Robertson is a learned Christian.

Ah thanks I will make sure to correct that.

and you know what I meant. I was striking on the emotional response that Americans have to words used to describe holy men in Islam. Heck, if you listen to the crap that comes from Robertson's mouth it is almost exactly the kind of crap you hear out of the religious leaders of Islam.

 

[phcatlantis]

and you know what I meant. I was striking on the emotional response that Americans have to words used to describe holy men in Islam. Heck, if you listen to the crap that comes from Robertson's mouth it is almost exactly the kind of crap you hear out of the religious leaders of Islam.

I don't think there's a large body of scholarship making that claim. You'll forgive me for dismissing it as enthusiastic conservative-bashing, okay?

 

[Dawguard]

Americans are tired of the conflict and want to move on to other matters, like gas prices or what ever is an obvious problem for them at the moment.

Sure they are, since things like gas prices are extremely important. They're sick and tired of being told how horrible everything is, and that we're loosing our country when all they see is life continuing on as normal.

So skip the rant–-Do you believe most Americans understand the filibuster versus the nuclear option, and how this is important in view of our history and basic premises of checks and balances? They might if they were interested in it, and if they were given real information instead of propaganda.

Perhaps I have more faith in the public then you do. I'm not saying their political genuises, but they aren't stupid. Most know what the filibuster is and how it works. As for propaganda, I think you're dead wrong. The media is not controlled by one person or group. You've got conservative radio, liberal radio, Fox News, CNN, not to mention the internet where pretty much everything is available. No, I don't think the country is getting propagandized. People can just turn on CSPAN and watch the entire procceedings live without any editorialising.

As for the religious right, may I ask why religion is being mixed into government? The religious right is more than willing to plow under separation of church and state for their holy grail of making abortion illegal. Here a blind eye is turned.

Religion isn't being mixed into government. It is an illusion, nothing more. Show me one instance, give me proof and I will believe you. Turn my blind eye to the truth. I don't think you can. However much you might hate the religious right you have to understand that they aren't really a threat. Sure, Pat Roberston is a git and a moron, but what harm has he done? He might rant and rave all day long, but isn't that just free speech? Can't anyone do the same thing on any issue? He's got no political power, no more then Jesse Jackson or Al Sharptin. Even with Alito in the supreme court the numbers will still be five liberals to four conservatives, so how's the religious right going to corupt the country when they're still outnumbered?

 

[Dawguard]

and you know what I meant. I was striking on the emotional response that Americans have to words used to describe holy men in Islam. Heck, if you listen to the crap that comes from Robertson's mouth it is almost exactly the kind of crap you hear out of the religious leaders of Islam.

Sure, he's called for the Naziesque destruction of the Jews, the anhiliation of every infidel on the planet and the murder of innocent children. I'm sure he'd like nothing better then to send fourteen year old children into market places with bombs strapped onto their back. Yeah, he's just like the extreme muslim terrorists, isn't he?

 

[ComputerGeek]

Sure, he's called for the Naziesque destruction of the Jews, the anhiliation of every infidel on the planet and the murder of innocent children. I'm sure he'd like nothing better then to send fourteen year old children into market places with bombs strapped onto their back. Yeah, he's just like the extreme muslim terrorists, isn't he?

Almost... he has called for the death of all Muslims as they are Satan's followers, he has called for the murder of foreign leaders, He has said that God will destroy cities in the US because they do not teach ID in their schools. He owns Diamond mines that work people to death

No, he does not need to strap bombs on people because he has the power to influence things without resorting to such atrocities.

 

[phcatlantis]

Almost... he has called for the death of all Muslims as they are Satan's followers...

I don't believe he's ever called for the death of Satan's followers.

...he has called for the murder of foreign leaders...

At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, this is hard to object to on principle given Hitler's case. Why is Hugo Chavez any different?

He has said that God will destroy cities in the US because they do not teach ID in their schools.

Yet hasn't raised a finger against them himself or incited others to do so. What an amazing sense of restraint.

He owns Diamond mines that work people to death...

And you "own" a law enforcement agency that puts innocent Americans in the line of fire of some dangerous people. Unless you want to charge Robertson with being a slaver, I don't think there's anything profound about observing that mining is a dangerous business.

No, he does not need to strap bombs on people because he has the power to influence things without resorting to such atrocities.

Yes, damn him for peaceably petitioning his government.

 

[SOS2008]

"Religion...mixed into government" is a pretty ambiguous statement, one I doubt the religious right would accept as a description of their aims without clarity of definition and severe qualification. Insofar as the religious right sees Establishment clause issues differently from you, I imagine its because they feel that is the best path, socially, politically and legally, for the country. On the other hand, don't you think random temper tantrums over your disagreements with conservatives deserve their own thread?

Temper tantrum?

There have already been threads on separation of church and state, and the misconstruing of the Establishment clause. I'm sure you can see from discussion about ID that most members feel the religious right is indeed trying to undermine separation of church and state.

In regard to Supreme Court nominations, perhaps you have already forgotten the WH pitch on behalf of Miers? A little slip up that revealed the true desire to accommodate the religious right (specifically the Christian faith), and clearly contrary to separation of church and state.

 

[Dawguard]

SOS2008, I'm not sure how you construe Alito's nomination as trying to destroy the separation of church and state. It's a pretty far leap to claim that a religious man can't hold a high position in government without being biased. What, is everything supposed to be run by aetheists and agnostics? I'm not sure what you're really getting at, how is the separation being violated?

 

[phcatlantis]

Temper tantrum?

Yes, whiny, unreasonable ranting for effect. Temper tantrum.

There have already been threads on separation of church and state, and the misconstruing of the Establishment clause. I'm sure you can see from discussion about ID that most members feel the religious right is indeed trying to undermine separation of church and state.

I'm not sure why your personal superstitions or those of likeminded people should concern me or this thread.

In regard to Supreme Court nominations, perhaps you have already forgotten the WH pitch on behalf of Miers? A little slip up that revealed the true desire to accommodate the religious right (specifically the Christian faith), and clearly contrary to separation of church and state.

We're clearly of two different minds on this issue. So my point stands, I think the religious right would be hesitant to describe its ambitions as you do.

 

[SOS2008]

SOS2008, I'm not sure how you construe Alito's nomination as trying to destroy the separation of church and state. It's a pretty far leap to claim that a religious man can't hold a high position in government without being biased. What, is everything supposed to be run by aetheists and agnostics? I'm not sure what you're really getting at, how is the separation being violated?

Once again, do not twist my words. If you read back you will see I never said that in regard to Alito, though I do believe there is a good likelihood that he will bring his personal religious beliefs into law making. What I said is that the religious right is so consumed with their singular quest to impose their beliefs on everyone else (e.g., make abortion illegal) that they are turning a blind eye to separation of church and state.

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, but rather derives from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, Jefferson referred to a “wall of separation between church and state.” James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, wrote in the early 1800s, “Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States.” Ulysses S. Grant also called for Americans to "Keep the church and state forever separate."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_Church_and_State

There are those who openly want the U.S. to be a Christian theocracy, such as Dominionism, Christian Reconstructionism, etc. This is what Bush represents:

Theocracy and Neofascism

However, some critics categorize the Christian Reconstructionist movement as a form of totalitarianism or theocratic neofascism. For example, Karen Armstrong sees a potential for fascism in Christian Reconstructionism, and notes that the system of dominion envisaged by Christian Reconstructionist theologians R. J. Rushdoony and Gary North "is totalitarian. There is no room for any other view or policy, no democratic tolerance for rival parties, no individual freedom," (Armstrong, Battle for God, pp. 361-362).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Reconstructionism#Theocracy_and_Neofascism

 

[phcatlantis]

There are those who openly want the U.S. to be a Christian theocracy, such as Dominionism, Christian Reconstructionism, etc. This is what Bush represents:

Do you have any evidence other than the conspiracy-mongering of left-wing lunatics pointing towards an influential Christian movement to institute American theocracy and President Bush's complicity? Or is this just a bunch of fringe garbage sane people should shrug off?

 

[Dawguard]

Once again, do not twist my words. If you read back you will see I never said that in regard to Alito, though I do believe there is a good likelihood that he will bring his personal religious beliefs into law making.

I don't need to put words into your mouth, you just said it now.

There are those who openly want the U.S. to be a Christian theocracy, such as Dominionism, Christian Reconstructionism, etc. This is what Bush represents:

Trust me, I know about reconstructionism very well. However, the majority of Christians don't adhere to this. Most of them are premillenialists: believing that Christ will come and rule on Earth for a thousand years. The reconstuctionists are postmillenialists: believing that there will be thousand year reign of Christanity, and then Christ will come. They want to bring about this thousand year reign so that Christ can come. As I said, most Christians fall into the former category. While there are a few reconstructionists, prominently the founder RushDoony who died recently, their beliefs do not translate into actions. I asked you before and I ask you again, show me one instance when the separation has been breached?
As for the part of your quote about Bush, you have absolutely no proof for this. This is groundless paranioa, religiousphobia if you will. Do you expect all of the 210 million Christians in the US to be fairminded? Of course there will be extremists, but why do you insist that they threaten the foundation of American demoracy? Just because Bush is Christian doens't mean he's part of the reconstrucionist movement. I ask you to give me proof, show it to me! All you have done is prove that the movement exists. Is there a single law that has been proposed that threatens the seperation? Have there been any actions taken by the president that threaten the seperation? Take one honest look at reality and I think you will see that your fear is nothing more then an overreaction to inevitable extremism.

 

[Dawguard]

Do you have any evidence other than the conspiracy-mongering of left-wing lunatics pointing towards an influential Christian movement to institute American theocracy and President Bush's complicity? Or is this just a bunch of fringe garbage sane people should shrug off?

It's conspiracy mongering. I don't even know why I bother to point out the lunacy. I guess I'm bored and need something to do.

 

[phcatlantis]

It's conspiracy mongering. I don't even know why I bother to point out the lunacy. I guess I'm bored and need something to do.

You and me both, brutha.

 

[SOS2008]

I don't need to put words into your mouth, you just said it now.

Well thank you for letting me say it myself. And there is good evidence (Alito’s record) to support the comment and concern in regard to his nomination. It is not “left-wing lunatics.”

I'm aware that most Christians don't adhere to Reconstructionism, and I did not say they do. I have provided many a post with evidence on Bush and fascist behavior as well. By stating these things exist is not a conspiracy if it is true these things exist.

Back to the topic…

Long live checks and balances in the United States!

 

[Dawguard]

Well thank you for letting me say it myself. And there is good evidence (Alito’s record) to support the comment and concern in regard to his nomination. It is not “left-wing lunatics.”

Show me the evidence. For the third time now, show it to me! Or perhaps you can't, because there isn't any?

 

[ComputerGeek]

Show me the evidence. For the third time now, show it to me! Or perhaps you can't, because there isn't any?

He just pointed to Alito's Judicial record. He is consistently in the minority in his rulings because he consistently rules against precedent (which is NOT the function of the appeals court)

If you read the majority opinions (most of the time, the majority is all of the other judges on the same court as Alito) They routinely cite Alito's lack of following set precedent.

Every single time Alito dissented from the rest of the court, it was in favor of Government power, Corporate power, against women, or against minorities.

Look at his record and you will see exactly what I am talking about.

 

[phcatlantis]

He just pointed to Alito's Judicial record.

Extending one's finger and pointing at the screen hardly constitutes an argument.

He is consistently in the minority in his rulings because he consistently rules against precedent (which is NOT the function of the appeals court)

Define "consistently dissents."

 

[ComputerGeek]

Extending one's finger and pointing at the screen hardly constitutes an argument.
Define "consistently dissents."

That depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

OK, can we lay of the semantics? His record shows that, against the rest of the appeals court, he predictably rules against women and minorities, for government power, and for corporate power.

 

[SOS2008]

Show me the evidence. For the third time now, show it to me! Or perhaps you can't, because there isn't any?

Because you have provided so much evidence for your position, quickly:

The CNN survey of his record found he has ruled on many hot-button issues: the death penalty, discrimination complaints, church-state disputes, gun control, police searches.

..."When they touch on issues that split people along political lines, Alito's dissents show a remarkable pattern: They are almost uniformly conservative," said Cass Sunstein, a University of Chicago law professor, who conducted a thorough analysis of Alito's record.

"In the overwhelming majority of cases, he has urged a more conservative position than that of his colleagues. In his dissents, at least, he has been a conservative's conservative -- not always in his reasoning, which tends to be modest, but in his ultimate conclusions."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/06/alito.record/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Carl Levin said Thursday that he would oppose Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, citing questions over whether the judge would be independent of President Bush and the executive branch.

"Judge Alito's record ... is one of supporting undue deference to the executive branch and raises significant doubts as to whether he would adequately apply the checks and balances that the Founders enshrined in the Constitution to protect, in part, against an overreaching executive," the Michigan Democrat said in remarks prepared for delivery later Thursday.

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/business/index.ssf?/base/news-31/1138302872323370.xml&storylist=mibusiness

Many legitimate concerns have been raised about the fitness of Judge Samuel Alito for the United States Supreme Court, and few were allayed at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. Alito didn't say a lot ...

That leaves mainly Alito's writings from which to weigh him as a potential member of the nation's highest court, and on that basis -- at this perilous point in American history -- he would not be a good addition.

While demonstrably bright enough to do the job, Alito has not as a government attorney and federal judge demonstrated sufficient respect for the checks and balances on which this democracy depends.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article? AID=/20060124/OPINION01/601240318/1068/OPINION

Other links:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/02/AR2005110202724.html

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/media/media-samuel-alito.xml

 

[Dawguard]

Of course Alito judges conservatively, what else would you expect from a conservative? Liberals judge liberaly, so I fail to see a problem with him judging conservatively. We can't all be on one side of an issue, a multitude of opinions is what democracy is all about.
As for what you and Levin called his disrepect for checks, balanced and civil liberties, I'm sorry but I won't take his word for it any more then yours. I could quote other senators saying the exact opposite thing: it's only their opinion. The Washington Post artical you linked to said, In civil rights cases, Alito has agreed with the court's majority most of the time, The Post's review found. When he disagrees, he is not prone to inflammatory language or frontal challenges to Supreme Court precedent. Still, when he has taken a dissenting stance, Alito repeatedly has set a higher bar than his fellow judges for plaintiffs to prove that they were discriminated against -- and sometimes even to get a trial. Bold text added.
That doesn't exactly sound like damning evidence to me. All Alito has ever done is judge conservitavely on issues, and I fail to see why that should disqualify him from the Supreme Court. In order to mollify your fears, consider a recent case in the court. An Oregon law made it legal for doctors to give patients fatal doses of medicine if they demanded it: basicaly euthinasia. The law was challenged all the way to the supreme court where it was upheld 6-3. Even with Alito on the bench there the vote would have been 5-4. Just because Alito is more conservative then you doesn't make him a threat to the country. The court is still balanced in favor of the liberal point of view.

 

[SOS2008]

Of course each side can make their arguments. The thread is about the filibuster. The very fact that the Republican majority has threatened the “nuclear option” to prevent checks and balances from the other percent of the nation who feel Alito is too far out of the mainstream is the issue at hand.

That people fail to understand the importance of this is what I find most disconcerting.

 

[ComputerGeek]

Of course Alito judges conservatively, what else would you expect from a conservative? Liberals judge liberaly, so I fail to see a problem with him judging conservatively. We can't all be on one side of an issue, a multitude of opinions is what democracy is all about.
As for what you and Levin called his disrepect for checks, balanced and civil liberties, I'm sorry but I won't take his word for it any more then yours. I could quote other senators saying the exact opposite thing: it's only their opinion. The Washington Post artical you linked to said, In civil rights cases, Alito has agreed with the court's majority most of the time, The Post's review found. When he disagrees, he is not prone to inflammatory language or frontal challenges to Supreme Court precedent. Still, when he has taken a dissenting stance, Alito repeatedly has set a higher bar than his fellow judges for plaintiffs to prove that they were discriminated against -- and sometimes even to get a trial. Bold text added.
That doesn't exactly sound like damning evidence to me. All Alito has ever done is judge conservitavely on issues, and I fail to see why that should disqualify him from the Supreme Court. In order to mollify your fears, consider a recent case in the court. An Oregon law made it legal for doctors to give patients fatal doses of medicine if they demanded it: basicaly euthinasia. The law was challenged all the way to the supreme court where it was upheld 6-3. Even with Alito on the bench there the vote would have been 5-4. Just because Alito is more conservative then you doesn't make him a threat to the country. The court is still balanced in favor of the liberal point of view.

The problem is not conservative rulings.. the problem is that he is to the right of the conservatives on the bench!

The Chief Justice is conservative, but I have faith from his record and his answers in his confirmation that he will rule according to the law (albeit a conservative perspective) but, Being pro government power all the time, pro big business all the time, anti-women and minorities all the time is not a conservative, it is a right wing extremist who values the powerful over the powerless.