Should we let Bill Frist & Co. change the rules of the senate ?

Lindsey Graham went on Hardball and said that some of the current judicial nominees are opposed by enough republicans that they won't be able to win on an up-or-down vote. He didn't say which one(s), but he says we'll know soon enough. If that's true then I suppose this agreement could be a good thing.Once Bush sends up a religious wingnut for the SCOTUS we're gonna be right back where we are now. I can see a possible advantage to the moderates and liberals here: the general public will likely be paying more attention to nominees for the SCOTUS. If Roe v. Wade seems threatened by an extreme nominee, using the nuclear option would be much more risky for the republicans because the resulting shutdown of the Senate promised by the democrats would likely have more public support than it would now.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Monk writes:

quote:

---

That's better than Teddy Kennedy choosing the next Supreme Court justice.

---

Really? At least Ted Kennedy wouldn't pick someone who'd deny rights to minorities, allow Alzheimer's patients to waste away unnecessarily, deny abortions to little girls who've been raped by their fathers and turn America into a fundamentalist theocracy.

quote:

---

And it's not cracks in the Republican stronghold. It's called compromise, ever hear of that?

---

What are you on about here? The compromise was between moderate republicans and moderate democrats. Ever heard of moderates? Those are people who aren't extremists like James Dobson.The "cracks" schraf spoke of may exist among democrats just as well as among republicans, but it's the reactionary (that means 'conservative extremists', in case you've never heard the word) republicans who have all the power right now. Moderate republicans have now flexed a bit of muscle and stopped the power grab by the reactionaries - at least for the moment. Schraf seems to feel that this may be a harbinger of good things. I hope she's right.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Monk writes me:

quote:

---

Ok, you want to play that game.

---

Sure, sounds like fun.

quote:

---

Ted Kennedy would allow killing babies as they are being born...

---

Where the hell are all these women who are having late-term abortions for convenience reasons? Do you honestly believe it ever really happens? Have you ever known a very pregnant women who was suddenly no longer pregnant but who had no newborn child?Choosing a late-term abortion is not something most women could do on a whim. This is a silly non-issue promoted by the theocons because it's emotional and sounds very dramatic. Give a bit of thought to the matter and it should be obvious that there's no there there.

quote:

---

...stuff more billion dollar pork barrel projects down his Massachusetts gullet...

---

What's that got to do with judicial appointments? I didn't say Kennedy'd make a great president, did I? I just said I'd prefer his SCOTUS appointments to those of Bush.But aside from that, how many senators are there that don't do pork? (Apologies to Lieberman, of course)

quote:

---

...destroy corporate America and turn the US into a communist dictatorship.

---

My, my. Kennedy is a communist? I didn't realize. That's a pretty serious charge, Monk, perhaps you have a bit of evidence you could offer to back it up?

quote:

---

Glad we agree that there was a compromise.

---

Yep. Put some gravy on that sum-bitch!

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

zyncod writes:

quote:

---

Why would you carry a baby to term only to kill it at the last possible minute unless there was a compelling medical reason?

---

Exactly! This is the biggest non-issue of my lifetime. Wingnuts blather about it to energize the base, and as Monk demonstrates the tactic works. It's sad really, because the only thing accomplished by laws against late-term abortion is to harrass women who are in extreme distress.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Alexander asks:

quote:

---

I know this is a few posts back, but can someone tell me definitively what the process is for amending the constitution? I was under the impression that an amendment required a supermajority in congress OR a ratification by 3/4ths of the states.

---

Change 'or' to 'and' and you got it!

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Monk writes:

quote:

---

I readily admit that some Republicans engage in these practices. The difference I find on this forum is that liberals have a hard time acknowledging that the same is true for Democrats.

---

I'm a liberal and I'll acknowledge it. Some of us feel that the two parties aren't enough. Some of us feel that either of the two major parties is just as corrupt as the other. Some of us feel that America would be much better served with a multi-party system. But if all we have is two parties, some of us feel that the best we can do is anything possible to stop domination of all three branches of government by either one of those parties.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Monk writes me:

quote:

---

I'm not so sure there would be any difference because three parties can be as corrupt as two.

---

I see that zyncod has already responded to this so I'll just say that I concur with him.

quote:

---

There were several political parties during the first 100 years of our nation.

---

Huh? The two we have now trace their roots directly back to well before the civil war. With no more than a very few exceptions those two parties have dominated American politics at the national, state and local levels for the vast bulk of this nation's history.

quote:

---

But even if it were possible to put a third party candidate in the white house, I suspect s/he would end up as a lame duck for most of the presidency due to the lack of party support in congress.

---

True enough but I wouldn't worry about it. I don't see a third-party candidate winning the presidency before that party gathers some degree of power in the congress.Trouble is that our current two parties have managed to fashion a system that protects them. It's almost impossible for a third party to ever get anything more than a few congressional or state legislative seats - and that only in or from large urban areas - because the laws are written to favor a two-party system. Only when a third party gains enough congressional power to affect change in the laws will it have any hope of fielding a viable presidential candidate. Therefore, as you observe, it probably won't happen.So we're stuck with the two-party system, but my fear is that we're in danger of becoming a one-party system. You are correct that there have been periods when we've had democratic party control of at least the legislative and executive branches (I think the judicial is arguable). I agree with you that that wasn't a good thing - and I even voted republican in certain places and at certain times to try to tip the balance a bit, but there was an important difference. At those times, the democratic party had two powerful wings. Liberal democrats were strong and so were conservative democrats. There was a lot of in-fighting between the two and that afforded some protection from absolute power by a particular faction.The republicans are under the almost complete control of their dominant and most radical wing: the religious wingnuts. It's because those wingnuts have deluded themselves into believing they have a mandate directly from an angry god that I'm scared to death of them, and I'm astounded that so many other people seem to be so torpid.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

You don't agree because you refuse to see. I don't care what the demographic studies say, the republican party is under the control of the religious wingnuts. I agree that they don't represent the majority of republicans, but until the majority starts speaking up and refuting the wingnuts then the wingnuts may as well be 100% of the party.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Phatboy writes schraf:

quote:

---

The fact that homosexuality is being touted as an alternativive lifestyle.

---

The only people "touting" homosexuality as an "alternative lifestyle" are religious wingnuts who either hate gays or who don't know any better. I've had enough conversation with you to realize that you do know better, so I'm saddened to see that I've been wrong about your motives.Speaking of alternative lifestyles, is that how you would characterize pentecostals? These people can be spotted a mile away, especially the women. They do everything they possibly can to stand apart from normal people. They don't wear normal clothes and they don't act like normal people when they're in public. And they do really bizarre things, like speaking in tongues. Do unnatural people like these live an "alternative lifestyle"? And since living an "alternative lifestyle" means idolatry to you, what idol do pentecostals worship?

quote:

---

Of course, you being the naturalist that you are and having no clue of Gods intentions of the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman means that you see this as the "fundamentalist agenda" and not as Gods wish for humanity.

---

How about "no evidence of God's intentions..."? What evidence is there that you and the other wingnuts speak for God? Where did Jesus say "don't let gay people get married!"? Where did Jesus say "gay people are idolators"? Where did Jesus say that it's okay to deny civil rights protections to people who aren't just like you? Where did Jesus ever say that anyone should be denied equal treatment under the law? Where, Phat? You speak for Jesus, you know what he wants, so where did he say all this lunacy that you so firmly believe?

quote:

---

To equate the ACLJ with the religious Taliban...

---

The ACLJ was formed by Pat Robertson, the idiot who thinks God sends hurricanes, earthquakes and terrorist attacks to punish homosexuals. You citing that group in any positive light whatsoever means you are scarcely different that Pat Robertson.Why would it be surprising that the ACLJ has won before the SCOTUS? There are religious wingnuts on the SCOTUS after all, or didn't you know that?

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!