judicial filibuster=anti-christian???

[SmarterThanYou]

True, but I don't think it's tit-for-tat or spite at play. This is a life-and-death ideological struggle.

judicial filibusters is a life and death ideological struggle? :scratch:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Anyway us conservatives did the same shit to Bubba Clinton's nominess, this is all payback. This is how politics is played here in the good'ol USA. Pretty ain't it?

Gosh, you're so above it all.

He who sees through it all sees nothing.

 

[dilloduck]

judicial filibusters is a life and death ideological struggle? :scratch:

I'm really not sure but the Dems are sure acting like it is !

 

[musicman]

judicial filibusters is a life and death ideological struggle? :scratch:

No, but it is one aspect of the life-and-death ideological struggle that is American politics. It's not like 50 years ago, when both parties agreed on the basics and differed only on means. This is all-out war.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

I'm really not sure but the Dems are sure acting like it is !

seems to me that both sides are, would it not to you?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

No, but it is one aspect of the life-and-death ideological struggle that is American politics. It's not like 50 years ago, when both parties agreed on the basics and differed only on means. This is all-out war.

so we're going to base the availability of an up or down vote on 9 justices as an all out war? man, we're screwed.

 

[dilloduck]

so we're going to base the availability of an up or down vote on 9 justices as an all out war? man, we're screwed.

ideological war--no need to lock and load yet !

 

[musicman]

so we're going to base the availability of an up or down vote on 9 justices as an all out war?

In the political sense - yes, absolutely. A fight to the death. The electorate have rejected the Democrat platform as dictated by its far left power brokers - rejected it in every arena. The judiciary is liberalism's last hope for continuing existence, and they're going to fight like cornered rats. Nothing I see in the next few years will surprise me.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

In the political sense - yes, absolutely. A fight to the death. The electorate have rejected the Democrat platform as dictated by its far left power brokers - rejected it in every arena. The judiciary is liberalism's last hope for continuing existence, and they're going to fight like cornered rats. Nothing I see in the next few years will surprise me.

what are you smoking?

The electorate have rejected the Democrat platform as dictated by its far left power brokers - rejected it in every arena.

are there still democrats in office? did democrats get newly elected or re-elected?

 

[dilloduck]

what are you smoking?


are there still democrats in office? did democrats get newly elected or re-elected?

Sure did---enough of em to stop any thing the republicans try to do. A bunch of politicians with only enough power to pass pork bills and give themselves raises. We're going on at least a decade of political gridlock and the evidence is all coming to the surface.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Sure did---enough of em to stop any thing the republicans try to do. A bunch of politicians with only enough power to pass pork bills and give themselves raises. We're going on at least a decade of political gridlock and the evidence is all coming to the surface.

has there been legislation passed? or has the government been at a standstill ince 2002? OR, do you consider all the legislation that HAS been passed nothing more than special interest legislation?

 

[dilloduck]

has there been legislation passed? or has the government been at a standstill ince 2002? OR, do you consider all the legislation that HAS been passed nothing more than special interest legislation?

IMHO-congress has been inefficiently slow to keep up with the countries needs. Partisanship and power plays have absolutley wasted valuable time and money. The Dems have has their turns at being in the majority. Wanna talk about packing the supreme court??
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5091/
Pure Personal Government: Roosevelt Goes Too Far in Packing the Court
President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1937 attempt to expand the federal judiciary, known as his “Court-packing plan” by its many critics, met with ferocious opposition. Congressmen who had warily supported the New Deal now backed away, unnerved by the president’s willingness to subvert the existing power structure. In the popular press, columns such as Dorothy Thompson’s from the Washington Star reflected both popular disgust at Roosevelt’s plan to increase the number of Supreme Court justices and FDR’s continued popularity. Thompson’s comparison of Roosevelt to Hitler seems ridiculous now, but others (like Father Charles Coughlin) made such comparisons regularly in 1937. Ironically, over the next four years FDR was able to fill seven vacancies on the Court, largely ending its opposition to the New Deal. By then, however, thanks in large part to public opposition to the Court-packing plan, he had lost the predictable majorities that had easily carried his bills through Congress during his first term.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Wanna talk about packing the supreme court??
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5091/

Please, is this Pre WW2? No, this is the 21st century. And it didn't work back then either, did it?

 

[dilloduck]

Please, is this Pre WW2? No, this is the 21st century. And it didn't work back then either, did it?

Nope but they gave it a good shot----don't you think that every single president that had the opportunity to appoint a judge tried to appoint one that was favorable to his parties' ideology?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Nope but they gave it a good shot----don't you think that every single president that had the opportunity to appoint a judge tried to appoint one that was favorable to his parties' ideology?

of course they have, I don't begrudge them that, and I don't think that the dems nor the repubs have either. All I've seen so far is both parties blocking judges they consider extremist, yet not until now have we seen a party whine so incessantly about it that they wish to invoke some sort of secret, never before seen, constitutional mandate about a guaranteed up or down vote to get their way.

again, what is it about THESE particular judges that begets such an outcry? what wild powergrabbing scheme do they have set up for future events that these judges might be a part of?

 

[dilloduck]

of course they have, I don't begrudge them that, and I don't think that the dems nor the repubs have either. All I've seen so far is both parties blocking judges they consider extremist, yet not until now have we seen a party whine so incessantly about it that they wish to invoke some sort of secret, never before seen, constitutional mandate about a guaranteed up or down vote to get their way.

again, what is it about THESE particular judges that begets such an outcry? what wild powergrabbing scheme do they have set up for future events that these judges might be a part of?

Different tactics--same goal----try to control the judiciary though appointments and confirmations. It's just the rights trying to get thier way like the lefts have tried to get thier way. Same power struggle--different look.
Nothing "special" about the judges other than they are right leaning and nominated by a Republican this time.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Different tactics--same goal----try to control the judiciary though appointments and confirmations. It's just the rights trying to get thier way like the lefts have tried to get thier way. Same power struggle--different look.

these tactics will have the nation split.

Nothing "special" about the judges other than they are right leaning and nominated by a Republican this time.

10 judges out of all the others are being held back and you see nothing special about them? 5% and these are just the ones the dems are 'picking' on? I know that both sides are petty, but don't you think that that would be petty even for the dems?

 

[dilloduck]

these tactics will have the nation split.

10 judges out of all the others are being held back and you see nothing special about them? 5% and these are just the ones the dems are 'picking' on? I know that both sides are petty, but don't you think that that would be petty even for the dems?

I think both parties are petty enough to split the nation for thier personal gain!

 

[musicman]

what are you smoking?


are there still democrats in office? did democrats get newly elected or re-elected?

Marlboros - and too damned many of 'em!

I think you know what I'm talking about, Smarter. Clinton was an anomaly. Democrats are watching their power base slip away, cycle after cycle. They face political extinction; they are desperate.

And, all their bitching about senate rules is worth a guffaw or two. These same Democrats - most notably Ted Kennedy - are on record saying that the fillibuster (among other rules) is by no means carved in stone. Of course, these statements date back to when Democrats still held a majority in Congress. I guess they don't apply anymore? Democrats in power: Senate rules can be changed. Republicans in power: The sky is falling! Hitler lives!

Truth = expediency - the marching orders of the Democrats.

 

[CivilLiberty]

I think after Terri Schiavo was murdered before our very eyes through the CHOICE of the courts a LOT of people are now connecting the dots.

Choice of the courts? No, not the choice of the courts.

Terri's legal guardian, and the only person with the legal authority over her treatment, was Terri's husband. Terri, the person, died some 15 years ago. The vegetable that was left was being kept alive by artificial means - removing the artificial means was Terri's wish (according to her guardian), which her guardian carried out.

The courts did not make this decision - the courts only ruled that, as per decades of law and legal precedent, that Michael, as guardian, had that sole right to carry out Terri's wish. These are not activist judges just because you don't like their ruling - they were ruling for the LAW as written and as developed in case/common law over history.

Interestingly, in Texas, if you have no hope of recovery they'll pull the plug after 10 days.


A