Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zodiak
That is fine, of course Frist should be consulted. However, I would argue that Frist will go along with whomever Bush chooses. There has been little independent thinking from Congress over the last five years other than to serve as a rubber stamp for whatever the executive branch wants.
|
That's why social security reform has got so far, right?
Quote:
|
But I am not for either party being favored in government. Both should be consulted and a consensus reached. Extremists only play into divisiveness, which I am sorry to say seems to be the order of the day.
|
Where do the people come into this? Should consensus be reached if the majority of people believe something?
Quote:
|
I disagree. Perhaps if the nominee was more mainstream then one would see the Democratic party split their vote as they have with so many issues recently. Remember, the Democratic party has DLC members and blue dogs who will vote against the party line to preserve their seat in southern or conservative states. The only way the Democrats would go into "obstruction mode" is if the nominee is ideologically extreme when compared to the relatively conservative Sanda Day O'Conner.
|
The problem here is who decides what is extreme. Your view seems to give the dems the power of determining if someghing is extreme or not, when i'm not sure if they can objectively do that.
Quote:
|
Yes, once a person is separated from politics, it is amazing to see what their conscious would truly say when given scruples. I suppose that is the reason why SCOTUS appointments are life-long. At some point politics does need to be separated from governmental decisions.
|
Conscience should have nothing to do with legal decisions. The only thing consulted should be law. And at least in regard to roe v. wade, conscience would lead people to overturn it in many cases, which is why it is law that needs to be followed.
Quote:
But the question I have for the right is....if Roe v. Wade is not overturned, then what consequences will their be? Will the right continue to support Republicans after it becomes clear that Roe v. Wade is used by Republicans as a lynchpin issue to get votes?
A hard question that has parallels with the Democrats. On the left, Democrats are always having to deal with their own party working against their interests. This practice (by blue dogs and DLCers) has caused schisms to the level where the party's core principles are off of the radar screen with the American people.
|
It should be obvious that the "right" will support republicans regardless of what happens with Roe v Wade. Just like the "left" supports dems regardless of what happened with gay marriage. Both parties just use issues as a way to get votes. Some of the individual representatives do believe in the individual issues, but the parties as a whole have decided to adopt certain issues to gain the votes of the people who believe in those issues.