• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Frist Set to Use Religious Stage on Judicial Issue

 
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.
 
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:
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…