Christian conservatives admit defeat on the nuclear option - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

CShine · 05-10-2005, 02:21 PM

Bit of a surprise, to say the least. I just hope they're right about how they've been shot down here.

Quote:

A prominent pro-family leader says he is "disgusted and alarmed" that Mississippi Republican Senator Trent Lott appears ready to cut a deal with Senate Democrats to preserve their right to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominees. On Tuesday (May 10), Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family told Don Wildmon, chairman and founder of the American Family Association, that a "totally reliable source" informed him that the senior senator from Mississippi has arranged a deal that would effectively prevent Majority Leader Bill Frist from invoking the constitutional option -- sometimes referred to as the "nuclear option" -- to stop the Democrats' continued filibuster against the president's conservative judicial nominees. Speaking to Wildmon on American Family Radio's AFA Report, Dobson conveyed his feelings about the report given to him by that source.

"I don't remember being so disgusted and alarmed by what I just had confirmed in the Senate as I am now," Dobson stated emphatically. "Senator Trent Lott is about to sabotage Majority Leader Frist and cut a separate deal with the Democrats to preserve the filibuster of judges."

According to Dobson, Lott and five other GOP senators will join six Democrats in the arrangement. "The deal, which Senator Lott vigorously denied yesterday, proposes that four of the ten filibustered judges would be confirmed -- but that the filibuster would remain intact," the Focus on the Family founder says.

What's in it for the Democrats? Dobson explains: "The Democrats, for what it's worth, have promised not to filibuster [nominees for] Supreme Court justice [vacancies] unless there were 'extreme circumstances,'" Dobson says skeptically. "Guess what that means: it means that it's business as usual."

The possible deal was first mentioned on Monday (May 9) by Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper. Wildmon, like Dobson, voiced strong feelings about the plan at that time. "This is exactly the kind of compromise the liberals have been looking for," Wildmon stated in an Action Alert to his organization's supporters on Tuesday morning, distributed before he received word from Dobson. "Senator Lott's proposal will do nothing but allow the liberals to still be in control."

Wildmon describes the vote to end the filibuster as "the most important vote taken this year in the Senate" -- and Senator Lott's proposal, he says, "means we lose."

When he received word on Monday of the possible deal being discussed by Lott and Senate Democrats, Wildmon began alerting listeners to his American Family Radio stations throughout the Magnolia State, encouraging them to call the senator's main office in Washington, DC, and district offices located in four Mississippi cities, and providing phone numbers for those offices. Lott's offices were reportedly kept very busy fielding calls from constituents voicing their opinion on the filibuster deal.

http://headlines.agapepress.org/arch...fa/102005g.asp

Lebell · 05-10-2005, 02:25 PM

I must say that I am surprised, but pleased, that this has happened.

I personally prefer nominations that a larger majority than the simple majority accept.

Mojo_PeiPei · 05-10-2005, 02:58 PM

It's nice to see a compromise on this issue, just can't wait until Renhquist steps down and there is a SC vacancy. I wonder what will be considered the extreme circumstance(s) when the dems filibuster to block Bushes nominee to fill the slot, I'm assuming it will be the fact that the appointee will be pro-life.

kutulu · 05-10-2005, 03:34 PM

Hmmm... maybe Lott had the foresight that a day will come when the Republicans are the minority and that short term gains may be trumped by future risks.

Mojo:
Pro-life alone might do it. But we can guarantee that a fundamentalist would be fillibustered, as they should.

Seaver · 05-10-2005, 03:48 PM

Yay, sanity returns to the conservative party.

Mojo_PeiPei · 05-10-2005, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

Hmmm... maybe Lott had the foresight that a day will come when the Republicans are the minority and that short term gains may be trumped by future risks.

Mojo:
Pro-life alone might do it. But we can guarantee that a fundamentalist would be fillibustered, as they should.

Why should a fundamentalist be filibustered? Because one is religious means they can't interpret law right? This is the type disgusting attitude and devisiveness that makes me wish the repubelicans did go nuclear.

StanT · 05-10-2005, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

Hmmm... maybe Lott had the foresight that a day will come when the Republicans are the minority and that short term gains may be trumped by future risks.

Maybe he remembers back to '68 when the Republicans did it to Abe Fortas.

Elphaba · 05-10-2005, 04:53 PM

This surprises me because in today's paper, Bush was calling for an up or down vote on his two most controversial appointments (Owen and Boyle). This suggests to me that he is pushing the nuclear option.

Both parties recognize that what is at stake is the next several appointments to the Supreme Court. The compromise being proposed is the best deal both parties can make. The nuclear option followed by shutting down of the congress will have immense negative impact on both parties.

filtherton · 05-10-2005, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Why should a fundamentalist be filibustered? Because one is religious means they can't interpret law right? This is the type disgusting attitude and devisiveness that makes me wish the repubelicans did go nuclear.

I bet you wouldn't be saying that if we were talking about an islamic fundamentalist.

Mojo_PeiPei · 05-10-2005, 05:19 PM

Nice try to throw me in the same boat as Pat Robertson, but the reality of it is I don't care what creed someone is, if they are an American citizen and in the position to be picked for a spot on the bench, their religiousness or lack thereof shouldn't play a factor.

filtherton · 05-10-2005, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Nice try to throw me in the same boat as Pat Robertson, but the reality of it is I don't care what creed someone is, if they are an American citizen and in the position to be picked for a spot on the bench, their religiousness or lack thereof shouldn't play a factor.

I don't think it should either. With the exception of anyone who puts their faith in god higher than their faith in the constitution. Under those circumstances how could they do anything but rule based on their religious beliefs over the laws of the land? I think most fundamentalists fall into that category.

matthew330 · 05-10-2005, 08:39 PM

I think fundamentalism here needs to be defined. The trend i've seen here defines christian fundamentalists as someone who goes to church on sundays, or a politician who reference god in public; while an islamic fundamentalist = someone who fly's planes into buildings. Clearly one of these fundamentalists' faith in god is a threat to the constitution.

Seriously, what is it about christian fundamentalism that scares liberals so much. Admitedly born-again's are a bit weird, but the most impact they've ever had on my life is an unplanned awkward conversation at a community get-to-gether or something. You can all guess what an impact islamic fundamentalism has had.

I guess what i'm asking is....Why does fundamentism in christianity, as broadly as it's apparently defined, invoke hatred; but fundamentalism in islam invoke sympathy, and convenient references to stereotypes?

lurkette · 05-10-2005, 08:51 PM

A lawyer friend of mine just explained to me what is at stake in the appointment of judges: they control the redistricting process. Appoint enough conservatives and we could gerrymander ourselves into a permanently Republican government.

filtherton · 05-10-2005, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

I think fundamentalism here needs to be defined. The trend i've seen here defines christian fundamentalists as someone who goes to church on sundays, or a politician who reference god in public; while an islamic fundamentalist = someone who fly's planes into buildings. Clearly one of these fundamentalists' faith in god is a threat to the constitution.

Seriously, what is it about christian fundamentalism that scares liberals so much. Admitedly born-again's are a bit weird, but the most impact they've ever had on my life is an unplanned awkward conversation at a community get-to-gether or something. You can all guess what an impact islamic fundamentalism has had.

I guess what i'm asking is....Why does fundamentism in christianity, as broadly as it's apparently defined, invoke hatred; but fundamentalism in islam invoke sympathy, and convenient references to stereotypes?

Who here is sympathizing with islamic fundamentalists? As for christian fundamentalists, at least for me, your generalization about who they are is yours and yours alone. Fundamentalist christians are a minority in christianity.

Seaver · 05-11-2005, 05:10 AM

Quote:

I don't think it should either. With the exception of anyone who puts their faith in god higher than their faith in the constitution. Under those circumstances how could they do anything but rule based on their religious beliefs over the laws of the land? I think most fundamentalists fall into that category.

I have more faith in God than in any man-written piece of paper. I'm by no means shape or form a fundamentalist (I support gay civil-unions). So you might want to re-define that.

Lebell · 05-11-2005, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurkette

A lawyer friend of mine just explained to me what is at stake in the appointment of judges: they control the redistricting process. Appoint enough conservatives and we could gerrymander ourselves into a permanently Republican government.

I don't think that is likely or even possible.

If enough people feel that a particular party is doing poorly, no amount of gerrymandering will keep them in power.

Manx · 05-11-2005, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

I don't think that is likely or even possible.

If enough people feel that a particular party is doing poorly, no amount of gerrymandering will keep them in power.

That seems extremely idealistic. Redistricting is simply one more method of defeating the intentions of elections. It most certainly alters the result. And it's already being done, you may recall the DeLay fiasco in Texas about 2 years ago.

Redlemon · 05-11-2005, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

I don't think that is likely or even possible.

If enough people feel that a particular party is doing poorly, no amount of gerrymandering will keep them in power.

Well, I heard on NPR (can't give a source or link, unfortunately) that if Texas hadn't been redistricted, the Republicans would have lost seats in the House rather than gained. So, there's a lot of power in districting.

Lebell · 05-11-2005, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlemon

Well, I heard on NPR (can't give a source or link, unfortunately) that if Texas hadn't been redistricted, the Republicans would have lost seats in the House rather than gained. So, there's a lot of power in districting.

I don't deny that. I'm just saying that if a particular party is doing poorly enough, even gerrymandering won't help.

In less extreme circumstances, it certainly will affect how elections will turn out.

Manx · 05-11-2005, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

I don't deny that. I'm just saying that if a particular party is doing poorly enough, even gerrymandering won't help.

In less extreme circumstances, it certainly will affect how elections will turn out.

Well, the likelyhood of any one of the two parties doing that poorly is effectively nil. Poor performance is easily covered by the fact that people simply want to believe their party is doing well, or atleast "the right thing".

So in reality, redistricting is a very real threat to (the supposed) honest elections. Only in the unlikely extreme does it become unlikely or even possible, as you say.

filtherton · 05-11-2005, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

I have more faith in God than in any man-written piece of paper. I'm by no means shape or form a fundamentalist (I support gay civil-unions). So you might want to re-define that.

You might want to reread what i said. I said many fundamentalists fall into that category. I didn't say all that fall into that category are fundamentalists.

edit - how much of your faith in god is based on the man-written piece of paper known as the bible?

kutulu · 05-11-2005, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

I have more faith in God than in any man-written piece of paper. I'm by no means shape or form a fundamentalist (I support gay civil-unions). So you might want to re-define that.

Generalizations (like statistics) are not meant to apply to individuals. They apply to groups. Maybe you are the 1 out of 10.

An example of putting God before the Constitution:

At least one state (I can't remember which) is trying to make it so that if a person runs an adult webcam and a resident of that state is able to view it, the person running the webcam can be arrested. Since one cannot control which regions of the country can or cannot view his webcam, it would effectively ban all adult webcams (since it would be the only way to comply).

A fundie judge is more likely to uphold that law, citing 'porn is bad, mkay' instead of striking it down as an infringement of 1st Amendment rights. There are many people Bush has put in power that are trying to attack the porn industry. He has the enforcement officers in place, now they can try to get the right judges in place. Fundie judges would fit this mold.

Seaver · 05-11-2005, 02:42 PM

Quote:

That seems extremely idealistic. Redistricting is simply one more method of defeating the intentions of elections. It most certainly alters the result. And it's already being done, you may recall the DeLay fiasco in Texas about 2 years ago.

I'm really sick of this. Sorry for the thread jack, but if yall looked at the states of districts in Texas before this, they made no sense. One district was gerrymeandered from houston in splotches all the way to the border. Gerrymeandering is nothing new to Texas, what's new is the Republicans won a majority for the first time SINCE THE CIVIL WAR. Dem's had absolutely no problem with redistricting Republican voters so their numbers could not count as effectively, but the very first time it worked against them they fled.

I'm in Texas, I know how it was. Instead of throwing party line stuff out look it up for yourself.

Hardknock · 05-15-2005, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

I don't think that is likely or even possible.

If enough people feel that a particular party is doing poorly, no amount of gerrymandering will keep them in power.

But lying about the "dangers" of terrorism will.

soundmotor · 05-15-2005, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlemon

Well, I heard on NPR (can't give a source or link, unfortunately) that if Texas hadn't been redistricted, the Republicans would have lost seats in the House rather than gained. So, there's a lot of power in districting.

Talk to the folks in Massachusetts. Districts that don't even touch or are linked by the slightest of threads have been patched together to keep weak Democrats in the tank.

soundmotor

Lebell · 05-15-2005, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardknock

But lying about the "dangers" of terrorism will.

I don't see how your comment is relevent to the discussion.

MSD · 05-15-2005, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

I think fundamentalism here needs to be defined. The trend i've seen here defines christian fundamentalists as someone who goes to church on sundays, or a politician who reference god in public; while an islamic fundamentalist = someone who fly's planes into buildings. Clearly one of these fundamentalists' faith in god is a threat to the constitution.

Seriously, what is it about christian fundamentalism that scares liberals so much. Admitedly born-again's are a bit weird, but the most impact they've ever had on my life is an unplanned awkward conversation at a community get-to-gether or something. You can all guess what an impact islamic fundamentalism has had.

I guess what i'm asking is....Why does fundamentism in christianity, as broadly as it's apparently defined, invoke hatred; but fundamentalism in islam invoke sympathy, and convenient references to stereotypes?

When a prominent politician begins a statement with "God told me to ..." then I consider him a dangerous fundamentalist who is likely to advance his own religious beliefs regardless of whether the majority support him in doing so. He is also likely to appoint those who he feels will advance that particular ideology. I personally believe that pretty much every government official should be elected by popular vote with the exception of the president's cabinet and possibly ambassadors

I would consider it an act of a fundamentalist to try to impose religious values on others against their will. I'm not talking about abortion or the death penalty, since it's obvious that someone who sees a medical procedure as murder will be opposed to it and want to see it outlawed. When someone wants to rewrite the Constitution to permanently outlaw something that does not affect anyone who is not involved in the act (gay marriage,) that person is acting on fundamentalist beliefs.

05-10-2005, 02:25 PM	#2 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I must say that I am surprised, but pleased, that this has happened. I personally prefer nominations that a larger majority than the simple majority accept. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

05-10-2005, 08:51 PM	#13 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	A lawyer friend of mine just explained to me what is at stake in the appointment of judges: they control the redistricting process. Appoint enough conservatives and we could gerrymander ourselves into a permanently Republican government. __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

05-10-2005, 02:58 PM	#3 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	It's nice to see a compromise on this issue, just can't wait until Renhquist steps down and there is a SC vacancy. I wonder what will be considered the extreme circumstance(s) when the dems filibuster to block Bushes nominee to fill the slot, I'm assuming it will be the fact that the appointee will be pro-life.

05-10-2005, 03:34 PM	#4 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	Hmmm... maybe Lott had the foresight that a day will come when the Republicans are the minority and that short term gains may be trumped by future risks. Mojo: Pro-life alone might do it. But we can guarantee that a fundamentalist would be fillibustered, as they should.

05-10-2005, 03:48 PM	#5 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Yay, sanity returns to the conservative party.

05-10-2005, 04:53 PM	#8 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	This surprises me because in today's paper, Bush was calling for an up or down vote on his two most controversial appointments (Owen and Boyle). This suggests to me that he is pushing the nuclear option. Both parties recognize that what is at stake is the next several appointments to the Supreme Court. The compromise being proposed is the best deal both parties can make. The nuclear option followed by shutting down of the congress will have immense negative impact on both parties.

05-10-2005, 05:19 PM	#10 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Nice try to throw me in the same boat as Pat Robertson, but the reality of it is I don't care what creed someone is, if they are an American citizen and in the position to be picked for a spot on the bench, their religiousness or lack thereof shouldn't play a factor.

05-10-2005, 08:39 PM	#12 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	I think fundamentalism here needs to be defined. The trend i've seen here defines christian fundamentalists as someone who goes to church on sundays, or a politician who reference god in public; while an islamic fundamentalist = someone who fly's planes into buildings. Clearly one of these fundamentalists' faith in god is a threat to the constitution. Seriously, what is it about christian fundamentalism that scares liberals so much. Admitedly born-again's are a bit weird, but the most impact they've ever had on my life is an unplanned awkward conversation at a community get-to-gether or something. You can all guess what an impact islamic fundamentalism has had. I guess what i'm asking is....Why does fundamentism in christianity, as broadly as it's apparently defined, invoke hatred; but fundamentalism in islam invoke sympathy, and convenient references to stereotypes?