Layman

I guess it depends on what you think the specific issue is. Obviously the public wants Bush to be able to put the judges he's offered on the bench. By a substantial margin. Playing the "overturn Roe" boogey-man did not work and most likely will not work. The radical abortion-absolutists on "Emily's List" went down in flames all over the country. Pro-lifers like Talen, Chambliss, and Coleman won.

Besides, most informed voters are aware that there is a big difference between overturning Roe v. Wade and outlawing abortions. The public is somewhere in the middle. They want some abortion restrictions but not a complete ban. Liberal courts are a greater impediment to the moderate public sentiment than conservative judges are.

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Buffman

Layman

They are dreaming. This is something that is simply beyond the President's control. There are probably a few nominees you can be "sure" about, but most of them -- like Bork -- would have problematic nomination hearings.

Hmmmmm? The President nominates and the Senate confirms.

Today, we have an overtly sectarian, fundamentalist Christian, President. Today, we have an overtly sectarian, fundamentalist Christian controlled, Senate majority. Problematic nomination hearings? How so?

John Ashcroft was an overtly sectarian, fundamentalist Christian, nomination with some "extremely" controversial (problematic) views and activities in his history, and recently voted out of public office. He is our current Attorney General.

Is it possible that "they" aren't dreaming and that you are? Is it possible that the tyranny of the religious majority, and the final piece of a plan to gut our secular government laws in favor of one religious faith's interpretations of moral laws, is only a couple of Supreme Court appoints away? What if the majority religious faith was Islamic? Would you be concerned if you saw them taking over control of all three branches of the secular government? I most certainly would be...unless I were a member of that majority faith belief.

Buffman

Layman

I guess it depends on what you think the specific issue is. Obviously the public wants Bush to be able to put the judges he's offered on the bench. By a substantial margin.

Isn't that a wee bit disengenuous? Didn't that same public, by a substantial margin, want the Clinton judge nominees appointed? The public wants justice on the bench, not partisan ideologues like Roy Moore...unless that public is as partisan as he is...and back we go to the tyranny of the majority.

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

Layman

No. I am completely genuine.

I do not know if the margin was as big. It was not as much of an issue because Clinton's appointees to the appellate court went through pretty handily.

This is nothing but vague generalities. I'm not sure what it is supposed to add to the discussion. Since Toto likely classifies anyone who has a problem with how Roe v. Wade was deicded as a "partison ideologue" I doubt your distinction adds anything.

Layman

Yes, and the judge actually is the judge. And he or she has a life appointment. It is extraordinarily difficult to guarantee a judicial philosophy, much less its application to various cases.

Justices Warren, White, Black, Blackman, and Souter have all made this perfectly clear.

Bush has overtly claimed to being a "fundementalist"? When and where did he do that?

Where and when did all those Republican Senators claim to being sectarian, or fundamentalist? Are you counting Senators Spector, Lugar, Chafee, and Coleman as "overtly sectarian fundamentalist Christians"?

Aschcroft was also a former respected Senator and was appointed to a position on President Bush's cabinent--not lifetime tenure on the federal bench.

They are dreaming if they think they can gaurantee the judicial philosophy of court appointees-especially Supreme Court appointees.

No.

That's a very broad question. If it was, I suspect many things would be very different. What is your point?

I get concerned when democracts control any branch of government, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Well, perhaps I'm not as paranoid as you are.

Buffman

Layman

No. I am completely genuine.

Thank you. Now try "disingenuous."

Toto

This is inaccurate. Senate Republicans blocked Clinton's appointments as a tactic until they got their own president. Unfortunately, the Democrats have not returned the favor, and have put most of Bush's appointments on the bench.

Buffman

Layman

I do not know if the margin was as big. It was not as much of an issue because Clinton's appointees to the appellate court went through pretty handily.

Really? Here are two pro-Clinton and one pro-Bush articles. All three are partisan politics at its finest. Apparently the public has become so frustrated with these vested interest antics that it has relinquished informed concern for simple expediency...and the current political manipulators and power brokers have been counting on this.

<a href="http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jan1998/nf80108b.htm" target="_blank">http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jan1998/nf80108b.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1999/jd101602.htm" target="_blank">http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1999/jd101602.htm</a>

(Extract from CivilRights.Org)

History
During his eight-year tenure, President Clinton appointed more women and African Americans to the federal judiciary than Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, and George H.W. Bush combined. His ability to fill key positions, however, was greatly limited by an often-hostile Senate. As a result, many seats on the federal bench went unfilled.
A nonpartisan report released by the Alliance for Justice in 2000 found that even as the average delay by the Senate in acting on all nominations became greater during President Clinton's tenure, women and minority nominees were delayed even longer by the Senate. The study also concluded that nominations of minorities failed at a rate more than double that of white candidates.
Indeed, today there are actually fewer African American judges on the federal courts of appeals than when Jimmy Carter was president in 1980. More specifically, there are no African American judges on the First or Tenth Circuit Courts of Appeal and no Hispanic judges on the D.C., Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuit Courts of Appeal.
During President Clinton's last year in office, the Senate confirmed only 39 federal judges - in comparison, the Senate confirmed 66 judicial nominees during George H.W. Bush's last year in office. Also in 2000, the Senate confirmed only eight of Clinton's 26 nominees for federal appellate seats - despite twelve judicial emergencies in the circuit courts of appeal. Overall, the Senate approved only 61% of President Clinton's appellate nominees - compared to an 87% approval rate for those nominated by President Reagan.
More specifically, the civil rights community found the treatment of several nominees during the 106th Congress particularly objectionable:
(End extract)

This is nothing but vague generalities. I'm not sure what it is supposed to add to the discussion. Since Toto likely classifies anyone who has a problem with how Roe v. Wade was deicded as a "partison ideologue" I doubt your distinction adds anything.

Might I inquire what you found "vague" about this testimony?

<a href="http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/NEWS/StoryLocalmoore17w.htm" target="_blank">http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/NEWS/StoryLocalmoore17w.htm</a>

Bush has overtly claimed to being a "fundamentalist"? When and where did he do that?

<a href="http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:RnAoXzitXrkC:www.christianladies.or g/testimonypres.html+G+W+Bush+Religious+Faith&hl=en& ie=UTF-8" target="_blank">Testimony of George W. Bush Jr</a>

<a href="http://urbanlegends.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa012401a.htm" target="_blank">http://urbanlegends.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa012401a.htm</a>

(Extract)
Dateline: 01/24/01
By David Emery
Mind you, I don't question President G.W. Bush's commitment to his religious faith. In his autobiography, A Charge to Keep, co-written by campaign advisor Karen Hughes, Bush described at some length his 1985 spiritual reawakening inspired by Reverend Billy Graham. He has attributed his decision to run for the presidency to a sermon he heard about the story of Moses. His first actions in office, including the appointment of cabinet members who share his doctrinal views and a ban on U.S. funding for international organizations that support abortion rights, demonstrate a clear intent to apply his personal beliefs to policymaking.
There's no doubting the man's religiosity. What piques my skepticism is the instantaneous formation of folklore surrounding it.
(End extract)

<a href="http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00272F" target="_blank">http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00272F</a>

(Extracts)
Presidential candidates G.W. Bush & Al Gore have made public proclamations of their Christian faith. Both Gore & Bush like President's Clinton & Carter proclaim they are born again believers.

Ralph Reed says about G.W. Bush-- "He is the prodigal son, the baby boomer that walked on the wild side & found God." Bush's evangelical admirers explain how Bush had failed in business, (a.k.a. insider trading?), & drank too much. A moment of truth arrived when GW once walked with Billy Graham. "Are you okay with God", Graham asked him. Bushs answer-- No, but Id like to be. In a few months, Bush quit drinking & immersed himself in Bible study.
(End extracts)

<a href="http://www.constitutionparty.com/Bushs_faith_based_fascism.htm" target="_blank">http://www.constitutionparty.com/Bushs_faith_based_fascism.htm</a>

Where and when did all those Republican Senators claim to being sectarian, or fundamentalist? Are you counting Senators Spector, Lugar, Chafee, and Coleman as "overtly sectarian fundamentalist Christians"?

I count what they do (how they vote), not what they say. (Did you miss my use of "controlled majority?")

Aschcroft was also a former respected Senator and was appointed to a position on President Bush's cabinent--not lifetime tenure on the federal bench.

Apparently not as respected by the voters who elected a dead man instead of him. And exactly what prevents GWB from including Ashcroft on his short list of Supreme Court nominees. He is the "respected?" Attorney General, isn't he? (His name was listed for that position, even as the Chief, in a short "USN&WR" item.)

They are dreaming if they think they can gaurantee the judicial philosophy of court appointees-especially Supreme Court appointees.

And many Americans thought it was a dream that the SCOTUS would intercede in a state's election process or approve Vouchers. Or that the President of the US would publicly lie about his morally corrupt conduct with a young female staffer. So in that sense, you are correct. It is difficult to know what humans will do in all conditions/circumstances. However, when it comes to a judicial philosophy that has been consistently in step with the desires of a religious belief system, I am inclined to believe that it is not likely to change all that much in the future. And when the President of the United States openly declares that he will nominate judges who have demonstrated that they will rule in a conservative manner, I view that as religious "double speak" for "will rule in a manner consistent with my religious faith beliefs and moral interpretations." To me, such an inference can be made and would be a violation of our Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 3....a religious test. (Obviously I can provide no verifiable evidence to support my position. However, the circumstantial evidence seems overwhelming to me.)

No

One person's opinion.

That's a very broad question. If it was, I suspect many things would be very different. What is your point?

Apparently my point is only obvious to those who do not practice your particular brand of religious-political rationale.

I get concerned when democracts control any branch of government, so I'm not sure what your point is.

How would you feel if only conservative Catholics controlled all three branches of government? Again I feel you are being "disingenuous."

Well, perhaps I'm not as paranoid as you are.

Perhaps you aren't as knowledgeable as you obviously believe you are. Arrogance does seem to be one of your more valid claims to fame.

Just as an aside: I vote my informed conscience, not someone else's label. Liberal and Conservatve are essentially meaningless. They are labels by which some people are too easily categorized and manipulated. I have seen no Party with all the "right" answers. Evidently you have. Why am I not surprised?

(edited by Toto to shorten link)

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Layman

Untrue. Democrats have played a much harder and partisan game with judges:

<a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/895pgqhl.asp" target="_blank">http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/895pgqhl.asp</a>

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Layman

Democrats have played a much more obstructionist game than the Republicans and even then themselves with Reagan and Bush I. The facts:

<a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/895pgqhl.asp" target="_blank">http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/895pgqhl.asp</a>


What testimony? Your previous posts was just a summation of your own opinion.

Bush has overtly claimed to being a "fundamentalist"? When and where did he do that?

At most I saw Bush described once as an evangelical. That is not the same thing as a fundamentalist.

So again. Where did Bush call himself a fundamentalist?


I was not aware they voted on anything like being "overtly sectarian fundamentalist Christians." Which votes were those? Or are you using conservative as a proxy for "overtly sectarian fundamentalist Christians"?

It was a very close race. The sympathy vote put Carnahan over the top. Note that she did not win in her own right.

Nothing. Why? Do you think that there should be a religious test for holding the office of Supreme Court justice?

I said he was a "respected Senator." I was pointing to the fact that approving a nomination to the President's cabinent is not the same thing as approving a nomination to the Supreme Court. I was also pointing out that Ashcroft's familiarity and friendship with the Senators voting on his nomination probably helped his case. Which would be rare for the Supreme Court.

Not sure what your point is. Just more evidence that that its hard to predict Supreme Court behavior. And not to many people were surprised by the Vouchers decision. Although many of us were very happy.

Is vouchers more code word for "overty sectarian fundamentalist Christians"?

Yada yada yada. There is a precedent here of Presidential inability to "control" the Supreme Court by appointments.

I was not aware that there was such a judicial philosophy. Or that Presidents inquired as to the religous faith of Supreme Court nominees. What is your evidence for either?

That is an unreasonable inrepretation on your part. Not Bush's fault.

Obviously you are talking out of your posterier. You have assumed that "conservative" means Christian. That's ridiculous. I'm sure that the Revs. Sharpton and Jackson would dispute this with you. Or Senator Kerry, a devout Catholic. Or Senator Clinton, a devout Methodist.

I could just as easily claim that the entire civil rights movement is a religiously inspired attempt to impose a religious viewpoint on America. And my evidence is direct, verifiable, and plenty of circumstantial thrown in. Most of the important leaders of that movement were Reverends and worked through churches to accomplish their political ends. The case is much stronger here than it is for Bush's "conservative" Judge preference.

Yeah. That was my point. Your statement was nothing more than one persons' paranoid opinion.

The question is absurd and makes no point whatsoever, except perhaps to those who share your paranoia and simply substitute "overly sectarian fundamentalist Christian" everytime they hear the word "conservative."

No, I'm being quite serious. You are playing hide-the-point or make-the-point-by-insinuation.

I have a political viewpoint. I want those in power who share it. I do not like it when Demoracts are in power. Does that make them illegitimate rulers? No. They are legitimate by the fact of their election. That would go for Muslims, Catholics, or "overtly sectarian fundemantalist Christians."

I'm much more knowledgeable about the "religious right" than most of you. I'm much more knowledgeabout about conservative and libertarian interest groups who are actually working on these issues than you guys are. I was a member of the Federalist Society. I've met and chatted with William Rehnquist, Nino Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Robert Bork. Heck, I was a chapter president in law school. And I've worked with the Institute for Justice and chaufferred Clint Bolick around in my won care. So yeah, I think I know a lot about these issues. Real experience rather than simple demonization of the opposition.

You mean manipulative labels like "overtly sectarian fundamentalist Christian." Why not extend the same courtesy to others you seem to reserve only for yourself?

Where did I state that?

Because you don't read what I actually post and rely instead on "manipulative labels" like "overtly sectarian fundamentalist Christians."