• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Frist Set to Use Religious Stage on Judicial Issue

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Frist Set to Use Religious Stage on Judicial Issue

As the Senate heads toward a showdown over the rules governing judicial confirmations, Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, has agreed to join a handful of prominent Christian conservatives in a telecast portraying Democrats as "against people of faith" for blocking President Bush's nominees.

Fliers for the telecast, organized by the Family Research Council and scheduled to originate at a Kentucky megachurch the evening of April 24, call the day "Justice Sunday" and depict a young man holding a Bible in one hand and a gavel in the other. The flier does not name participants, but under the heading "the filibuster against people of faith," it reads: "The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and it is now being used against people of faith."

Organizers say they hope to reach more than a million people by distributing the telecast to churches around the country, over the Internet and over Christian television and radio networks and stations.

Dr. Frist's spokesman said the senator's speech in the telecast would reflect his previous remarks on judicial appointments. In the past he has consistently balanced a determination "not to yield" on the president's nominees with appeals to the Democrats for compromise. He has distanced himself from the statements of others like the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, who have attacked the courts, saying they are too liberal, "run amok" or are hostile to Christianity.

The telecast, however, will put Dr. Frist in a very different context. Asked about Dr. Frist's participation in an event describing the filibuster "as against people of faith," his spokesman, Bob Stevenson, did not answer the question directly.

"Senator Frist is doing everything he can to ensure judicial nominees are treated fairly and that every senator has the opportunity to give the president their advice and consent through an up or down vote," Mr. Stevenson said, adding, "He has spoken to groups all across the nation to press that point, and as long as a minority of Democrats continue to block a vote, he will continue to do so."

The event is taking place as Democrats and Republicans alike are escalating their public relations campaigns in anticipation of an imminent confrontation. The Democratic minority has blocked confirmation of 10 of President Bush's judicial nominees by preventing Republicans from gaining the 60 votes needed to close debate, using the filibuster tactic often used by political minorities and most notoriously employed by opponents of civil rights.

Dr. Frist has threatened that the Republican majority might change the rules to require only a majority vote on nominees, and Democrats have vowed to bring Senate business to a standstill if he does.

On Thursday, one wavering Republican, Senator John McCain of Arizona, told a television interviewer, Chris Matthews, that he would vote against the change.

"By the way, when Bill Clinton was president, we, effectively, in the Judiciary Committee blocked a number of his nominees," Mr. McCain said.

On Thursday the Judiciary Committee sent the nomination of Thomas B. Griffith for an appellate court post to the Senate floor. Democrats say they do not intend to block Mr. Griffith's nomination.

That cleared the way for the committee to approve several previously blocked judicial appointees in the next two weeks.

The telecast also signals an escalation of the campaign for the rule change by Christian conservatives who see the current court battle as the climax of a 30-year culture war, a chance to reverse decades of legal decisions about abortion, religion in public life, gay rights and marriage.

"As the liberal, anti-Christian dogma of the left has been repudiated in almost every recent election, the courts have become the last great bastion for liberalism," Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council and organizer of the telecast, wrote in a message on the group's Web site. "For years activist courts, aided by liberal interest groups like the A.C.L.U., have been quietly working under the veil of the judiciary, like thieves in the night, to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms."

Democrats accused Dr. Frist of exploiting religious faith for political ends by joining the telecast. "No party has a monopoly on faith, and for Senator Frist to participate in this kind of telecast just throws more oil on the partisan flames," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York.

But Mr. Perkins stood by the characterization of Democrats as hostile to faith. "What they have done is, they have targeted people for reasons of their faith or moral position," he said, referring to Democratic criticisms of nominees over their views of cases about abortion rights or public religious expressions.

"The issue of the judiciary is really something that has been veiled by this 'judicial mystique' so our folks don't really understand it, but they are beginning to connect the dots," Mr. Perkins said in an interview, reciting a string of court decisions about prayer or displays of religion.

"They were all brought about by the courts," he said.

Democrats, for their part, are already stepping up their efforts to link Dr. Frist and the rule change with conservatives statements about unaccountable judges hostile to faith.

On Thursday, Mr. Schumer released an open letter calling on Dr. Frist to denounce such attacks. "The last thing we need is inflammatory rhetoric which on its face encourages violence against judges," he wrote.
 

Amused

New member
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
33
Reaction score
6
Location
West Lafayette, IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
I do enjoy how we (and by we I mean all of us anti-christian, anti-religion, anti-America, and anti-Mom's apple pie liberals) are framed by conservatives. I mean, they are right on certain issues, like thieves in the night we did break into the judicial system and stole civil liberties from white men and gave it equally to all men and women. We did do that one. But I have a hard time understanding at what point we are destroying religion. I see the liberal paradigm as one where they yell for equality and a seperation of church and state. Now, these two issues go hand in hand, so they are not mutually exculsive at any point.

The way I see it, liberals are not hurting the Christian movement, they just aren't helping it. They are trying to make sure taht every political and educational opportunity that a Christian has, a Jew, a Muslim, a Taoist has. So I see the liberal agenda helping religion as a whole much more then the conservative agenda is. The conservative agenda is only helping one area of religion and then claim a holier then thou attitude towards the democrats. It is extremely ironic if one really thinks about it.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Ok, first I completely agree with McCain, he stated it how it was. "By the way, when Bill Clinton was president, we, effectively, in the Judiciary Committee blocked a number of his nominees," Mr. McCain said. This is completely right. The Republicans held up countless numbers of people through any means possible, whether it be fillibuster (which they didn't have to use as much), judicial proceedings (witnesses, questionaires invading the life of the person-which if they didn't answer would not get voted for by the person giving the questionaire...lott and his cronies did this a lot), almost anything. They didn't have to change the rules then, and then they were in the majority but with the president as a democrat. Now, it seems, they are pissed that the Democrats are using what is politically allowable, what has always been politically allowable and it would be stupid for them to change it now. Why you may ask? Its great in the short term, but what about when they loose control of the senate, what then? Then they will be in a bind because they will have problems with the democrats having that rule in place for their benefit.

No offense to those Republicans who think this an outrage, but honestly, how can you say that the Democrats are holding up democracy when they let over 90% of the president's nominees get through? They are providing their advice to the president by saying there is no way in hell this person is getting on the court. Prove me wrong there-that is exactly what they are saying. And after they have been shot down (before the last election), bush does the most arrogant thing possible and renominates them-how do you think that makes the democrats feel? Pretty pissed. They realized that their advice wasn't heeded and that Bush feels confident enough to renominate them-the Democrats have the power to once again say no through fillibuster to the extremely conservative judicial nominees (most of whom have extremely, extremely conservative views) that they feel would not be conductive to a fair and impartial judiciary (the Republicans exercised their right to prevent the most liberal, this time it is the exact same except replace liberal with conservative).

Onto the nice little religion thing. As amused said, no party has a monopoly on religion. Nobody can say that God is on their side or that they are the moral party, but that is exactly what Frist is doing. The fact that most of these judicial nominees are religious should have no bearing on whether they get into their post or not-it should be strictly merit based, as it was supposed to be.

and for your reading pleasure...info on held up judges by republicans-senate pages --just showing that the republicans did it too...
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom