Thread Options 
|
#361956 - 05/20/05 03:54 PM
Senate Filibuster
|
Power Poster
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,332
WOOHOO
|
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#361957 - 05/20/05 04:08 PM
Re: Senate Filibuster
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Change the rules to suit your immediate needs and to fulfill your "drunk with power" wonderlust!? I would LOVE to hear the screaming if the shoe was on the other foot. The Republicans better remember that they will not be in the majority forever and that what goes around comes around. Recent poll results would indicate fissures in their support.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#361958 - 05/20/05 04:38 PM
Re: Senate Filibuster
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Wonderlust? What is that, exactly?
Yep, the Republicans better be worried about not being able to abuse a rule that they abused...(hold on, looking up the figures)...(still looking)...(wow, can't find anything)...
Ok, anon's premise is that the Republicans should worry about not being able to filibuster judicial appointments because they have filibustered exactly zero appointees in the past...am I the only one that doesn't make sense to?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#361959 - 05/20/05 04:38 PM
Re: Senate Filibuster
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
|
Quote:
Change the rules to suit your immediate needs and to fulfill your "drunk with power" wonderlust!? I would LOVE to hear the screaming if the shoe was on the other foot. The Republicans better remember that they will not be in the majority forever and that what goes around comes around. Recent poll results would indicate fissures in their support.
Thanks for expressing the view from the left. From my vantage point, it is much more complicated than that with politics being played on both sides and no party having the constitution clearly on their side. That being said, sadly, this is all about Roe vs. Wade. If the Supremes had overturned that overreaching decision and returned the legislating to the state legislatures, we would not be in this constitutional crisis.
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#361961 - 05/20/05 04:52 PM
Re: Senate Filibuster
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
...(hold on, looking up the figures)...(still looking)...(wow, can't find anything)...
Since you don't know how to look up anything....
Poll
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#361962 - 05/20/05 04:59 PM
Re: Senate Filibuster
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,238
|
The filibuster is not something constitutional - it was made up by the Senate a couple hundred years ago. Who is to say that the Senate can't change its own rules? It already changed the rules on filibustering once before. It used to be that in order to sustain a filibuster, the filibusterer(s) had to keep talking - keep the debate going. When they stopped, the debate was over and the matter could be voted on. It's fairly recent history (I'm thinking past 25 years or so) that the Senate decided that was inconvenient, and moved to a system where they would simply vote on closing debate and if they didn't have the 60 votes, the matter was set aside so that they could get on with other business without having to actually continue the debate.
If we still had the old filibuster procedure, this wouldn't be an issue. The dems would have to actually hold up other business and continue talking in order to filibuster a nomination. At some point, a) they would have made their point and if the nomination lacked sufficient support it would be withdrawn; or b) the public would demand an end and the dems would have to allow an up or down vote.
As it is, the previous rules change allows the Dems to filibuster without political or practical consequence.
The constitution says the Senate must confirm judicial appointments. It doesn't say it has to be with 60 votes. 51 is enough. This wouldn't be an issue if the Dems would let the nominees come up for a vote. Who knows, some of them might even be denied confirmation.
_________________________
Nobody's perfect, not even a perfect stranger.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#361963 - 05/20/05 05:06 PM
Re: Senate Filibuster
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
Quote:
...(hold on, looking up the figures)...(still looking)...(wow, can't find anything)...
Since you don't know how to look up anything....
Poll
What did I miss in this story that documented Republican abuse of the Senate rules to filibuster judicial appointees?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#361964 - 05/20/05 05:08 PM
Re: Senate Filibuster
|
Power Poster
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,912
Outside A Garage
|
They know they don't have the votes to deny confirmation because the majority of the senators....the ones elected by the people.....disagree with them so their only course of action is to try to implement tyranny of the minority through the use of the fillibuster.
_________________________
...you guys, I'm going home
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#361965 - 05/20/05 05:22 PM
Re: Senate Filibuster
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
|
Republicans, while not using the filibuster in the past, have not allowed up and down votes on judicial nominees.
"The Republicans' hands aren't clean on this either," Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said last week on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos." "What we did with Bill Clinton's nominees, about 62 of them, we just didn't give them votes in committee, or we didn't bring them up."
Senator Frist has stated all judicial nominees deserve an up and down vote on the Senate floor. If only the Republicans had felt this way during President Clinton's term.
Let's stop the holier than thou attitude and call it what it is. The majority party wants to change the rules to achieve a political goal. They have every right to do it, if democrats don't like it, they need to win more Senate seats.
However, my opinion is the Republican should not alter Senate rules, which have helped maintain a stable, republican government system longer lasting than any other in history.
The key to our government's stability was built by the founders in creating checks and balances to prevent a "tyranny of the majority" (Federalist Papers No. 10).
I know the filibuster is not constitutionally derived, but allowing the minority some measure of power, albeit small, requires compromises and centrist decisions that multiple factions have a vested interest in.
This decision to alter the filibuster has been dubbed the "nuclear option" because it may have far reaching effects. The minority party will be further disenfranchised from the process. Compromises will no longer be necessary and the further radicalization of both political parties will continue.
Ponder this before deciding if the Republicans are making a sound decision.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#361966 - 05/20/05 05:34 PM
Re: Senate Filibuster
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Let's suppose that the shoe were on the other foot. Let's say that someday down the road the Dems regained control of the Senate and there was a Dem President. The Reps then try to block the Prez's judical nominations by filibustering. Does anyone honestly think that the Dems would even hesitate before changing the Senate rules to end the filibuster? They would do it faster than you could say "majority rule."
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#361967 - 05/20/05 05:38 PM
Re: Senate Filibuster
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
"The Republicans' hands aren't clean on this either," Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said last week on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos." "What we did with Bill Clinton's nominees, about 62 of them, we just didn't give them votes in committee, or we didn't bring them up."
Mr. Hagel running for President and hoping to corner the "moderate" vote. He doesn't mention how many of those sixty-two were nominated in the last few months of Mr. Clinton's presidency, nor how many would not have had majority support on the floor.
That said, President Bush has proposed an agreement (the same one echoed last week by Sen. Frist) which would guarantee an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor for the nominees of any President, withing X number of days (90?) from the time they were nominated. (No holding up in committee, no blue slips, no filibusters.) If the Democrats would agree to this, there would be no need for the Republicans to act.
Who really started with the nuclear tactics? Those who abuse the rule, or those who stop the abuse? Those who stop abuse, or those who stop all action in the Senate to protest?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#361968 - 05/20/05 05:55 PM
Re: Senate Filibuster
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
|
Let's get past all of the silly discussions and get to the bottom line:
Without discussing filibusters, why shouldn't a president's judicial nominees be allowed up or down votes by our elected representatives?
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#361969 - 05/20/05 06:04 PM
Re: Senate Filibuster
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
|
Why is it no matter whom anyone quotes, from what source, you question the veracity?
Those 62 were the total throughout Clinton's term. In contrast, Pres. Bush has had 10 nominees held up.
Please feel free to check the numbers out.
Again, Republicans have been guilty of similar tactics in the past. They have abused the rules, they have held up nominees, they will do so again when a democrat is in the white house.
Why reach out to the democrats with the offer, when republicans can make the change?
Make the change, deal with whatever political fallout there is - positive or negative.
These types of moves further alienate the half of the country that is not republican. These moves further polarize the political spectrum.
No compromises, no meeting in the middle. My way or the highway will be the republican theme for '06 and '08 campaigns.
With total power comes total responsibility. Have it, lead the country and see if the people support the direction you go.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#361970 - 05/20/05 06:13 PM
Re: Senate Filibuster
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
|
Quote:
Let's get past all of the silly discussions and get to the bottom line:
Without discussing filibusters, why shouldn't a president's judicial nominees be allowed up or down votes by our elected representatives?
Do our elected representatives give up and down votes on everything a President ask for?
Would we need a judiciary committee then or just have the President give a name and have a vote immediately?
Do you want any investigation or is that Presidential perogative?
Do you really want life time appointments voted on in this way?
Again, the process creates a need for compromise, something the far-right and far-left seem less and less interested in.
The process forces centrist positions to come through, including centrist jurists who are neither radical left or radical right.
Do you want radical jurists from either side sitting on the bench for 20, 30 40 years swinging from left and right field?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#361972 - 05/20/05 06:29 PM
Re: Senate Filibuster
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
They know they don't have the votes to deny confirmation because the majority of the senators....the ones elected by the people.....disagree with them so their only course of action is to try to implement tyranny of the minority through the use of the fillibuster.
Just because their only option is to fillibuster doesn't make doing so right. If they were unable to use the fillibuster, their only option would be to then shoot the nominee, and we certainly wouldn't allow that, now would we?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#361973 - 05/20/05 06:36 PM
Re: Senate Filibuster
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
Why is it no matter whom anyone quotes, from what source, you question the veracity?
Because I am a skeptic. But I wouldn't say that it doesn't matter whom - there are certain people I trust more than others. Someone who is trying to make a name for themselves by breaking with his party has a little less credibility when criticizing it, in my opinion.
Quote:
Those 62 were the total throughout Clinton's term. In contrast, Pres. Bush has had 10 nominees held up.
A) those are apples and oranges. The Bush nominees are all to higher courts. If the Dems had held up 10 circuit court nominees, this wouldn't be debated.
B) Clinton was working with a Republican Senate most of that time, you would expect a lower percentage of confirmations. Compare to Jimmy Carter's percentage or Reagan's.
Quote:
Please feel free to check the numbers out.
Please provide the names, dates of nomination, court to which they were appointed, and action taken, then I will render an opinion.
Quote:
Again, Republicans have been guilty of similar tactics in the past. They have abused the rules, they have held up nominees, they will do so again when a democrat is in the white house.
They probably have done some things that I would not approve of on individual appointments (I know, for example, that Jesse Helms put holds on some Clinton nominees in retaliation for Democratic action on some Bush I nominees), but I don't know many specific cases. They have NOT, however, systematically opposed a whole class of nominees.
Quote:
Why reach out to the democrats with the offer, when republicans can make the change?
The optimist would say that it is because Frist wants to fix this thing going forward, instead of fighting about it every time the party in the WH changes.
Quote:
No compromises, no meeting in the middle. My way or the highway will be the republican theme for '06 and '08 campaigns.
The Republicans have offered to make a deal that will include up or down votes for nominees regardless of who is in the WH. What fairer compromise would you propose?
Look, there are about 10 very moderate to liberal Republicans in the Senate. That leaves about 45 somewhat conservative Republicans. That is not enough to confirm "extremist" (read: Constitutionalist) appointees. The 60 vote hurdle is to make sure that the courts continue to be very liberal, regardless of who wins the WH.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#361974 - 05/20/05 06:52 PM
Re: Senate Filibuster
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
|
Quote:
Quote:
Why is it no matter whom anyone quotes, from what source, you question the veracity?
Because I am a skeptic. But I wouldn't say that it doesn't matter whom - there are certain people I trust more than others. Someone who is trying to make a name for themselves by breaking with his party has a little less credibility when criticizing it, in my opinion.
Quote:
Those 62 were the total throughout Clinton's term. In contrast, Pres. Bush has had 10 nominees held up.
A) those are apples and oranges. The Bush nominees are all to higher courts. If the Dems had held up 10 circuit court nominees, this wouldn't be debated.
B) Clinton was working with a Republican Senate most of that time, you would expect a lower percentage of confirmations. Compare to Jimmy Carter's percentage or Reagan's.
Quote:
Please feel free to check the numbers out.[/ quote]
Please provide the names, dates of nomination, court to which they were appointed, and action taken, then I will render an opinion.
Quote:
Again, Republicans have been guilty of similar tactics in the past. They have abused the rules, they have held up nominees, they will do so again when a democrat is in the white house.
They probably have done some things that I would not approve of on individual appointments (I know, for example, that Jesse Helms put holds on some Clinton nominees in retaliation for Democratic action on some Bush I nominees), but I don't know many specific cases. They have NOT, however, systematically opposed a whole class of nominees.
So 10 nominees is a whole class? I think you are dialing up the rhetoric a little aren't you? The exact number of judicial appointments escapes me at the moment, but something over 90% of nominees have been approved. If that is systematic, the democrats are doing a piss-poor job of if.
Quote:
Why reach out to the democrats with the offer, when republicans can make the change?
The optimist would say that it is because Frist wants to fix this thing going forward, instead of fighting about it every time the party in the WH changes.
Or the skeptic would say that Frist's presidential ambitions have him courting the far-right and christian coalition, thereby prohibiting a compromise. This offer is not a compromise, since the rules could be changed again, at any time. The democrats have said let these nominees go through, allowing the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. This is what the fight is over. If a compromise is made, each side needs to give up something. What are the republicans giving up in making this generous offer. They get their way, and if they don't, they will take their ball and go home.
Quote:
No compromises, no meeting in the middle. My way or the highway will be the republican theme for '06 and '08 campaigns.
The Republicans have offered to make a deal that will include up or down votes for nominees regardless of who is in the WH. What fairer compromise would you propose?
see above
Look, there are about 10 very moderate to liberal Republicans in the Senate. That leaves about 45 somewhat conservative Republicans. That is not enough to confirm "extremist" (read: Constitutionalist) appointees. The 60 vote hurdle is to make sure that the courts continue to be very liberal, regardless of who wins the WH.
Actually, with 45 conservative senators, the WH needs only 5 more to vote yes on any candidate. With sufficient political pressure and arm twisting, this is not that difficult and an extremist nominee could be approved.
And conversly, if there are 45 conservative senators, how could a liberal nominee be approved. Again, a compromise would be needed to find a nominee acceptable to both sides.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#361975 - 05/20/05 06:56 PM
Re: Senate Filibuster
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is why the rule should not be changed.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#361976 - 05/20/05 07:08 PM
Re: Senate Filibuster
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
So 10 nominees is a whole class? I think you are dialing up the rhetoric a little aren't you? The exact number of judicial appointments escapes me at the moment, but something over 90% of nominees have been approved. If that is systematic, the democrats are doing a piss-poor job of if.
I hope you realize that we are talking about appeals court nominees. They aren't blocking circuit court appointments, but the higher courts. And yes, that is a class. If you aren't aware of this, I suggest a little more research before getting involved in the debate.
Quote:
Or the skeptic would say that Frist's presidential ambitions have him courting the far-right and christian coalition, thereby prohibiting a compromise. This offer is not a compromise, since the rules could be changed again, at any time. The democrats have said let these nominees go through, allowing the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. This is what the fight is over.
Then they should let the nominees go through, and there will be no need to change the rules. The Republicans will not change the rules if cloture is approved on the current nominees. If the Dems want to keep their powder dry for a Supreme Court nominee, do it. The Republicans can't stop them.
Quote:
If a compromise is made, each side needs to give up something. What are the republicans giving up in making this generous offer. They get their way, and if they don't, they will take their ball and go home.
The Republicans would be promising to provide the same treatment to Democratic nominees in the future. Again, what would you have the Republicans give up, other than the ability to block future nominees without a vote?
Quote:
Actually, with 45 conservative senators, the WH needs only 5 more to vote yes on any candidate. With sufficient political pressure and arm twisting, this is not that difficult and an extremist nominee could be approved.
Yes, and since it's been so easy  for the Republicans to hold together a majority for the simple proposition of an up-or-down vote, I'm sure it would be just as simple to get recalcitrants like Lincoln Chafee to vote to confirm a serious conservative like Robert Bork.
Quote:
And conversly, if there are 45 conservative senators, how could a liberal nominee be approved. Again, a compromise would be needed to find a nominee acceptable to both sides.
You don't get it - NO ONE is acceptable to the Dems unless they favor abortion on demand, affirmative action, gay marriage. They go to the lengths (considered by the bench to be unethical) of asking nominees how they would rule in particular situations. Why? Because it is the one branch of government where liberalism can be enforced without the support of the people.
What is the President's litmus test? Judges who enforce the law as it is written.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#361977 - 05/20/05 07:10 PM
Re: Senate Filibuster
|
Power Poster
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,332
WOOHOO
|
Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Delaware) March 19, 1997: “But I also respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor.”
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Illinois)September 28, 1998: “We should meet our responsibility. I think that responsibility requires us to act in a timely fashion on nominees sent before us. ... Vote the person up or down.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) September 11, 1997: “Let’s bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down.”
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)February 3, 1998: “We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don’t like them, vote against them. But give them a vote.”
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) May 10, 2000: “The Founding Fathers certainly intended that the Senate advise as to judicial nominations, i.e., consider, debate, and vote up or down. They surely did not intend that the Senate, for partisan or factional reasons, would remain silent and simply refuse to give any advice or consider and vote at all.”
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) 5/14/97 : “It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.”
Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD): “I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination.” (Congressional Record, 10/5/99)
Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD): “Hispanic or non-Hispanic, African American or non-African American, woman or man, it is wrong not to have a vote on the Senate floor.” (Congressional Record, 10/28/99)
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): “My expectation is that we’re not going to hold up judicial nominations. …You will not see us do what was done to us in recent years in the Senate with judicial nominations.” (Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume,” 6/4/01)
Richard Durbin (D-IL) "If, after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar that name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote the person up or down." (Cong. Rec., 9/28/98, S11021)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “Let’s bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down.” (Congressional Record, 9/11/97)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “It is our job to confirm these judges. If we don’t like them, we can vote against them.” (Congressional Record, 9/16/99)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “Our institutional integrity requires an up-or-down vote.” (Congressional Record, 10/4/99)
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): “ is used … as blackmail for one Senator to get his or her way on something that they could not rightfully win through the normal processes.” (Congressional Record, 1/4/95)
Tom Harkin (D-IA) "Have the guts to come out and vote up or down….And once and for all, put behind us this filibuster procedure on nominations." (Cong. Rec., 6/22/95, S8861)
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): “I urge the Republican leadership to take the steps necessary to allow the full Senate to vote up or down on these important nominations.” (Congressional Record, 9/11/00)
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don’t like them, vote against them. But give them a vote.” (Congressional Record, 2/3/9
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “It is true that some Senators have voiced concerns about these nominations. But that should not prevent a roll call vote which gives every Senator the opportunity to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ ... Parties with cases, waiting to be heard by the federal courts deserve a decision by the Senate.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)
Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI): “These nominees, who have to put their lives on hold waiting for us to act, deserve an ‘up or down’ vote.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “I hope we … will accept our responsibility and vote people up or vote them down. … If we want to vote against them, vote against them.” (Congressional Record, 10/22/97)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “Now, every Senator can vote against any nominee. … But it is the responsibility of the U.S. Senate to at least bring them to a vote.” (Congressional Record, 10/22/97)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “ "I have stated over and over again … that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported …” (Congressional Record, 6/18/9
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “arlier this year … I noted how improper it would be to filibuster a judicial nomination.” (Congressional Record, 10/14/9
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “f the person is otherwise qualified, he or she gets the vote. … Vote them up, vote them down.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): “e should have up-or-down votes in the committee and on the floor.” (CNN’s “Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields,” 6/9/01)
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): “We are charged with voting on the nominees. The Constitution does not say if the Congress is controlled by a different party than the President there shall be no judges chosen.” (Congressional Record, 3/7/00)
Carl Levin (D-MI) "If a bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate is prepared to vote to confirm the President's appointment, that vote should occur." (Cong. Rec., 6/21/95, S8806
_______
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#361978 - 05/20/05 07:12 PM
Re: Senate Filibuster
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
abortion on demand, affirmative action, gay marriage.
What do you find so offensive about these things? I can only assume that you are a homophobe, female and are looking for a job.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#361979 - 05/20/05 07:15 PM
Re: Senate Filibuster
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is why the rule should not be changed.
And it seems like the Dems have the power in this case. They are the ones holding up debate on the issue, not those in the majority.
I do think that eliminating the Filibuster would be a mistake. The minority party needs a way to affect debate. But, it should be costly if it is going to be used. Going back to the original rules (senator has to continue to talk to maintain the filibuster, stopping all business) would not be a bad thing. I think it is now overused, and something needs to be done to change it.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#361980 - 05/20/05 07:21 PM
Re: Senate Filibuster
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
abortion on demand, affirmative action, gay marriage.
What do you find so offensive about these things? I can only assume that you are a homophobe, female and are looking for a job.
And we can only assume you are an uninformed, extremist left-wing fanatic.
National polls show the abortion debate evenly divided. However, the majority of Americans however oppose any system that favors one group over another (as Affirmative Action does). Most favor one that favors equality for everyone.
And the vast majority of Americans are opposed to Gay Marriage - making about 70% of Americans Homophobes according to you.
The liberal left needs to realize that their requirements on judges would create a judiciary very out-of-sync with the majority of Americans. Judges are supposed to enforce the laws, not rewrite or create them.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Thread
Index