Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Thank you for this subject. I have long been afraid of the slow erosion of our civil rights and this is the latest! Doesn’t the GOP realize that someday that law could be used against them? No they think that they are and will always be the majority. No Doubt that Nostradamous will believe that it is just the left whining again but as Sen. Byrd pointed out Hitler was “Always Legal” If any of you dare read the essay and with an open mind! Hitler won the hearts of the German Arian public by using hate, is that not what is being done here in the USA. We should hate the “Blue” people because we aren’t moral like the right, we should hate the gays because their being married will topple marriage ( I guess that means we all turn gay if gay’s can marry because I certainly won’t divorce my husband because gays can marry. And yes I am a female despite the name.), and we should hate all muslims because some fanatics hated US enough to kill our innocents. (And yes I was one of the first calling on Bush to bomb the blazes out of AFGANISTAN not Iraq) So we are being incouraged to HATE! Look at the similarities it should scare you to death.

Yesterday, I attended a kickoff rally for the next Republican governor of Virginia. To this exlusivley Republican crowd, he said that many Democrats share our values and he wanted to serve all Virginians. Contrast that with Howard Dean.

“I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for,” Howard Dean told Democrats.

After 9/11, President Bush called Islam a religion of peace on many occasions. Each year he participates in Islamic celebrations.

“ Islam brings hope and comfort to more than a billion people worldwide. Islam affirms God’s justice and insists on man’s moral responsibility.

“Here in the United States our Muslim citizens are making many contributions in business, science and law, medicine and education, and in other fields. Muslim members of our Armed Forces and of my administration are serving their fellow Americans with distinction, upholding our nation’s ideals of liberty and justice in a world at peace. And in our Nation’s Capital, this center contributes greatly to our spiritual and cultural life.”

This is what President Bush says about Muslims. Doesn’t sound like hate to me, but maybe Democrats know more about hate.

I am in favor of gay marriage. This puts me at odds with most Republicans AND most Democrats. I recognize that you can be against gay marriage and not hate gays.

The Democrats keep on talking about hate. Maybe you all should look in the mirror. You are attributing to us your own fears and emotions. Howard Dean says that he hates Republicans and all they stand for. Condemn him before you talk about hate.

There’s a reason why the GOP is the “ruling party” AP; the Democrats keep losing elections.

You can bitch and complain, or you can offer a better alternative.

The problem with any nuclear option is the fallout. The Republican party is succeeding in making itself radioactive to evenits own party members. They may think they have the mandate and the power to wield their will this way, but the reality is, people want their government contained within safe bounds.

The danger here is that the Republican counterculture is persuading itself that it deserves power regardless of what any law or minority group would do to limit it. It’s persuading itself that this grab for power is necessary to save the country, the society, and even the world, and that any compromise would mean the destruction of all they hold dear.

They’ve got to realize that some of the rules protect them, and that by being as aggressive as they’re being, they may end up alienating enough of a majority to shift power back leftward.

Unfortunately, I think they may not take the hint, and their activities after such a defeat may become more radical.

They must realize America was not meant to be theirs alone.

George-
Keep up this behavior, and see how long you can gloat over winning elections. When the success of your goals becomes your only measure of proper behavior, that’s when you stand to fall the furthest from it.

Yesterday, I attended a kickoff rally for the next Republican governor of Virginia. To this exlusivley Republican crowd, he said that many Democrats share our values and he wanted to serve all Virginians. Contrast that with Howard Dean.

Jack, Howard Dean could probably sue him for copyright infringement.

“I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks,” the former Vermont governor was quoted as saying in Saturday’s Des Moines Register. “We can’t beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats.”

“He lectured me on the role of homosexuality in history and politics. It had destroyed ancient Greece, he said. Once rife, it extended its contagious effects like an ineluctable law of nature to the best and most manly of characters, eliminating from the reproductive process those very men on whose offspring a nation depended. The immediate result of the vice was, however, that unnatural passion swiftly became dominant in public affairs if it were allowed to spread unchecked.”
Rudolf Diels

Stephen-

Who’s gloating? I’m not a Republican so it would be odd for me to gloat about their success anyway.

You can either bitch moan and complain about how the GOP is the “ruling party” and how they are turning the U.S. into pre WWII Germany, or you can get back to wining elections by offering viable alternatives. The choice is the party’s to make.

Of course you can continue to say that there’s nothing wrong, and it’s all the Republicans fault. Maybe even blame it on big business or propaganda and brainwashing by the MSM and its GOP plants. That won’t bring me back, but it might make you feel better about your party.

AP, try to read between the lines. What does the law say about approving judges? Does it say a majority is required, or that 60% is required? You’re framing the issue with a political tilt. Filibustering of judicial nominees on this scale is unprecedented. It’s nothing less than the rule of the minority. How’s that for democracy?

If there is a universal right to be “heard at length”, as Byrd puts it, it should exist whether or not there are 40 discenting senators. A single discentor should be able to speak for as long as he likes. But that’s not the way they made the rules.

In the 60s one had to speak at length to filibuster. Now Democrats merely notify the Chair of their intent, and the debate is cancelled! No discussion happens! Is this really about the right to be heard at length? Or is it about Democrats trying to relive the glory days when they were the majority?

If you want to advocate the constitutionality of the filibuster, do it when you don’t have an agenda. Otherwise you’re just playing a political game. The Democrat senators have been playing it for the last 3 1/2 years.

First-time blogger, so don’t kick me around too much. Also, I am generally a rightie, and will try not to invade your space here too often.

For those of you who don’t know who Rudolf Diels is, I had to look it up and thought I would try to post a link.

For the record, there are a lot of us Red State Republicans who are uncomfortable with the government. Period. We are just as split on Schivo as Democrats are on Gay Marriage.

This veil of legality in the original article seems a better fit for what Democrats did for 50 years, as they pushed through a constitution-busting social agenda. It is ironic to me that the Byrd is recalling FDR’s packing of the Supreme court (which he was probably in the Senate to witness). That very attempt to pack the court, and the resultant intimidation that pushed the court to rule the New Deal as constitutional, seems to me a better example of what Byrd is calling Nazi behavior. It is ironic that he sites it in support of his case!

Lastly, has the left really become the advocate party for State’s Rights, or are they just saying that the Republican Party is not our home any more? I think I know the answer.

George-
I apologize if I misindentified your affiliation. I just don’t like that people like you think this is just us Democrats were being sore losers. I think many of us are genuinely fearful of the consequences of the excesses of the Republican party. We are offering viable alternatives, it’s just that you guys typically ignore them, because we can’t match the attention grabbing radicalness of the Republican agenda. There is no real left-wing media presence comparable to the Right-Wings, so we don’t get our message echo-chambered to such notice. Problem is, though, that if people are told what the Republicans really intend to do, and have done, they wouldn’t be so keen on supporting them.

Gandhi-
If the Republican party had the sixty votes required to break the filibusters, they would deserve to win. Otherwise, there isn’t enough public support to overrule the groups that form the minority. This is a safety valve on the power of small majorities, so they can’t simply shape the system to their sole benefit, entrenching their majority.

And what the hell do you think the Republicans are doing? Do you think passing laws they know flirt if not cross the line of constitutionality is a substantive act of policy? They are far from lacking in partisan sensibilities, what with DeLay decrying the possibilities that Conservatism might be defeated. I think you should consider just how foolish it is to blame politicians for being political. My problem with them is when they start being impractical or irresponsible in the course of doing so, and I find nothing irresponsible about holding up the confirmation of judges whose policies and statements are highly prejudiced.

Kentucky-
To some degree, the expansion of the government is permanent, and not because of the New Deal alone. In part, our technology and population rises have made it impractical to use a small, weakly empowered government to govern the country. The increased speed and capacity of travel further complicates things by making nearly every business in America an interstate commerce concern.

Though there is a legitimate need for the exercize of state’s rights, there’s also a need to recognize that our society and our world has necessitated a permanent increase in the size of government.

If you don’t trust the government, you’re in good company. But I don’t think shrinking the government or getting phobic about it is the answer. I think the answer is to stop voting party line, and start making performance in office the measure of what gets them reelected. In this country, the parties should be loyal to the people, not the people to the parties. Democracy only works when one allows oneself choice, instead of giving it away freely.

Remember everyone, the filibuster works both ways:

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm

Isn’t the so called “nuclear option” only about judgeships?

Is there any law that says it should take 60 votes to confirm a judge?

Did the founding fathers that granted the senate “advice and consent” call for 60 votes to confirm a judge?

I agree that that many of Clinton’s nominations never made it out of committee for a floor vote, but Clinton didn’t have control of the three branches that move that forward.

Voters elect President, House, Senate, and if voters shifted away from Dem/ Liberal ideas, perhaps its time to look at platform ?

If voters didn’t elect Dem.’s into the majority of any branch, don’t you think there might be a reason?

AP,
Where will the ‘nuclear option’ lead? Democrats have approved 204 judges, and filibustered 10 in Bush’s first term. Those filibusters broke tradition by using the tactic at a lower level for judicial appointments than in the past. Quite naturally, Republicans want 100% of the nominations approved.

Changing Senate rules to deny filibusters seems like an extraordinary move just to push through a relatively small number of appointments, which begs the question; where is this leading? Is this the preliminary battle for a Supreme Court nomination? How far, if at all, will the nuclear option be extended towards other legislation?

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Unless, of course, the plan is to make the majority permanent.

phx8,

“Those filibusters broke tradition by using the tactic at a lower level for judicial appointments than in the past. Quite naturally, Republicans want 100% of the nominations approved.”

Didn’t you mean that the standards are being set higher?

If voters didn’t elect Dem.’s into the majority of any branch, don’t you think there might be a reason?
Posted by: Beagle at March 24, 2005 02:21 PM

Well yes I do Beagle it is because Rowe and company and their spin machine, ie: Well it was the end of the world that Clinton was a coward and avoided Vietnam but when we had someone who HAD gone to Vietnam then it was a sin to have gone. The Swift boat vets twisted truth (with Rowes blessing) to make a man who went to Vietnam worse than someone who spent his time here in America out of harms way.
And the tide is begining to turn, here in Ga. a state as red as it could be former Rep. (R) Bob Barr has decided that many of the Patriot acts laws are a bit unconstutional. He is concerned about the “sneak and peak” provision where fed agents can go in and search your home and there is no deadline for them to notify you. Another is the provision that alows the feds to collect personal data on American citizans such as your MEDICAL history, what books you check out, and what you buy-without evidence that the person in question is connected to terrorism. Also the section that defines terrorism is so vague that “ordinary citizens trying to exercise their right to free speech could be charged as terrorists. He has joined with the ACLU and the Free Congress Research and Education chairman (conservative)who is concerned the patriot act could also jeopardize the right to gun ownership. Interesting hum

Beagle said: ” If voters didn’t elect Dem.’s into the majority of any branch, don’t you think there might be a reason?”

Elections for President are complicated affairs. There are a host of reasons why Republicans achieved so much control, not the least of which was an ongoing war and voters shying away from unknowns leading them to vote incumbent.

It is simple minded to think that a majority of voting Americans simply identify with the Republican record and philosophy as the major reason.

David my friend,

I didn’t say there was a major mandate.

I understand that electing a President is quite complex, based on many factors.

However, if three branches all are voted in to one side of the isle, is it “simple minded” to think there is no reason for that ?

Beagle,
If I understand correctly, you’re right. In a sense, filibustering lowers the level for judicial appointments, and does represent a higher standard than originally intended.

It’s a violation of tradition, and a creative use of parliamentary rules. It does not involve changing the rules themselves, which is what the nuclear option entails.

And as several have already pointed out, over the long run this will cut both ways.

What is in our best interest? A higher bar for lifetime judicial appointments, or permitting a majority party (with between 50 and 60 Senate votes) free reign? I’d argue for the former. But accepting a higher bar has its own perils. So far, the Democrats have filibustered a very small number of judicial appointments. Given the increasingly poisonous political atmosphere in Congress, suppose the Democrats or a future minority used the same tactic to stop all appointments? I suppose the electorate could respond by electing a 60 vote majority…

phx8,

I undestand what you’re saying, at any election the tables could be turned.

But did the founding fathers call for more than a simple majority to confirm a judge?

If that is wrong, and needs to be changed, lets let the elected representavies propose that and let people vote on it.

Why does left always turn to the Klan to attack Republicans?

Old habits die hard I guess.

Does anyone know what part of the constitution requires a supermajority for judicial appointments. I have been looking, can’t seem to find it anywhere.

Republicans don’t want 100% of their nominees approved, just an up or down vote.

Does anyone really think the deomcrats would not go nuclear if the roles were reversed?

Peter - your question: Does anyone really think the deomcrats would not go nuclear if the roles were reversed? The answer is of course they would. However please in any haste to lable do not forget that we all have freedom of speech.

Why don’t you guys just put in more moderate conservative judges? We’re resisting these few because they’re supremely objectionable, especially if they’re simply getting the judgeship to hop to the supreme court.

I just got a question for you all: What in the constitution says that a minority political party isn’t entitled to use the traditional methods of legislative procedure to fight for their constituents interest?

Tell me something, are the Democrats supposed to go back to the people who elected them to office, shrug their shoulders and say we just had to let your interests be trampled by an agressive majority because otherwise we’d look like obstructionists?

Please. These people aren’t doing anything Democrats across America don’t want them to do. They’re sick of the Democrats in congress acting like Republicans light and letting the GOP walk all over them.

You may like having all these radical agenda items shoved down our throats, but we sure don’t, and more you push, the more we want to push back. You are the ones to blame for the intensity of the resistance. Your unwillingness to compromise has put Democrats in the position that they must uncompromising and aggressive themselves if they even want to hold on to level of power they have now.

At some point, you’re fighting the will of a large portion of the American people, and you will get absolutely nowhere by telling they are irrational, when they believe they are standing up for their values, and their most cherished beliefs. How badly does your side have to break the system in cutting us out of it, before you recognize our right to work within it?

You cannot fight forever against your own fellow citizens. Make your peace with us, and we will make our peace with us. Otherwise, there will be a fight, and we won’t cooperate in our own disenfranchisement.

Make our peace with you. Pardon me.

Interesting article. We just have to make sure we keep a good balance in politics. I think that is the true meaning of this article. I don’t think that the republican agenda should be compared to Hitler, but to each their own. Whether the Dem’s or the Republicans are in the majority, we want to make sure we hold them in check. That’s why we need more politicians with the guts to go against the grain, to vote against their party. George Washington said that political parties would lead to this countries destruction. I would have to agree.
Ivan

Beagle,
“Does anyone know what part of the constitution requires a supermajority for judicial appointments. I have been looking, can’t seem to find it anywhere.”

Could it be in the section of the Constitution on ‘Senate Judiciary Committee parliamentary rules?’ Can’t seem to find that one, either.

There’s no violation of the Consitituion that would stand up before the Supreme Court, otherwise this would have landed there a few years ago.

Which brings us back to the nuclear option. If Senate Republicans go through with it, allowing a simple majority to confirm all judicial nominations, the Senate Democrats will say ‘enough.’ There’s not much point in participating if they cannot have input.

While I always thought Daschle was a decent man, he was, relatively speaking, a ‘get along and go along’ leader. Curiously, although it gained the Republicans a seat, defeating Daschle might have been a disaster.

It’s still early, but Reid seems unlikely to be a ‘get along and go along’ type. We’ll see if his actions match his rhetoric. Senators are powerful, wealthy people with big egos. Both sides generally treat one another with civility, and compromises are routine. But if Frist goes for the nuclear option, I don’t think Reid will react the same way as Daschle might have reacted. Reid may react to the nuclear with a counterstrike; no input and no compromise, then no participation and no appointees approved whatsoever.

That won’t appear in the Consitution either. Neither will the idea that 51% = 100%.

Phx8, as I recall in math class, 51%= people’s mandate correct?

Ivan, what the hell can we do? Political parties are often cesspools of power hungry fiends and are therefore inherently corrupt. I guess you just have to make the best of whatever comes your way in life and accept that some things are immutable.

Z,
Here’s a loaded question: do we live in a democracy?

We’re all familiar with the dangers of a ‘tyranny of a majority.’ I don’t want to wander too far afield, but the idea is to balance the rights of the majority with the rights of the minority. When in doubt, the Constitution philosophically errs in favor of the rights of the minority.

The only way to stop a tyranny of the majority is if you reduce the size of the federal levels and disperse it to the states. It would pretty much put the country back to what it originaly was, a union of nation states. You limit the federal powers to protection of the union and standerization of currency. Let each state lead in its own manner. Essentialy killing the possibility of of majority tyranny.

N,
Very perceptive. But doesn’t that simply split one tyranny into fifty, united only by their forced participation in a union using one currency?

I believe it is Jefferson’s Parliamentary rules for the Senate that grant the minority party the filibuster option on any legislation proposed on the Senate Floor when the Senate is in session. If I recall this correctly, it is these centuries old rules that are threatened to be changed by the GOP, and not just for judgeships. By changing the filibuster rule, they open many other majority party whims to be acceded to by a simple majority on a floor vote.

In fact, if the filibuster rule is changed, there is nothing to prevent any majority party from changing all of the parliamentary rules to their favor for as long as they remain a majority party. Talk about chaos and losing an entire year or more while a majority party rewrites all of the rules in their favor. Fun stuff this…

Since the groupings are smaller it creats less of an issue of some feeling left out. And if they do then they can move to a new nation state that meets with their view points.

Essentialy California would be the drugy state. Idaho would be the record holder for most tanks per street block and so on. The only conformity is the Currency and the protection of a unified military aliance.

Where the Right’s argument - that this is purely a partisan obstructionist tactic by Democrats - falls apart, is in the math.

With 44 Senate Democrats currently, getting to the required 60 vote filibuster means finding defectors from the Republican majority. And, in the past, GOP moderates like Collins, Chafee and Specter have joined the Democrats to oppose extremist Bush nominees.

What this means, is that not all Senate Republicans are lockstep in support of all of Bush’s nominees, just as the Democrats have not opposed a record number who have been confirmed. Presently, to oppose a nominee as ‘unqualified’, takes the difficult task of finding a bi-partisan consensus of 60 votes.

Sounds just about right?

Republicans don’t want 100% of their nominees approved, just an up or down vote.

That’s the same thing. With an up or down vote, the Republcan majority (or the Democratic majority of the future) wins every time.

Does anyone really think the deomcrats would not go nuclear if the roles were reversed?

The situation was reversed for several decades and Democrats didn’t go nuclear. Byrd makes that clear by bringing up FDRs Supreme Court packing defeat in the 1930s.

Christ, I remember the 70s and 80s when Congressional Democrats would make whatever compromise it took to get a Republican co-sponsor for their legislation. After the Gingrich revolution Republicans who did that were considered consorting with the enemy and campaign funding was diverted to GOP challengers for their seats. That’s just crazy.

I know you hard-core Bush fans are going to think this is just Democratic whining, but for a moment consider the possibility it’s not.

The GOP leadership is obviously convinced that a GOP majority in Congress is now part of the historical dialectic. Any other situation is merely an aberration. It’s the same with the presidency, and it’s the reason the GOP leadership isn’t worried about giving the federal government powers that they would never want a Democratic president or Congressional majority to wield.

GOP moderates had better consider what killing the filibuster will mean when Republicans who have been picking up seats by slim margins start losing them again by slim margins. Some in the GOP leadership are simply delusional and Americans aren’t too stupid to notice. Look at Tom DeLay saying Terry Schiavo’s tragedy was a “gift from God” for the GOP. That’s just sick.

Polls show the GOP leadership is taking one position after another that runs counter to American thinking. It’s gonna catch up to them, and unless you moderates think applying a scorched earth policy to our government on the way out is a good idea, you should seriously consider telling your representatives to say “NO” to the nuclear option.

PHX8,
And as several have already pointed out, over the long run this will cut both ways. What is in our best interest? A higher bar for lifetime judicial appointments, or permitting a majority party (with between 50 and 60 Senate votes) free reign? I’d argue for the former.

You may have actually convinced me. In a generation or two, when you guys win government back, I will want to slow the steady march toward socialism in any way possible, and being able to filibuster the most objectionable judges seems reasonable.

Maybe what should be discussed is just how the Judiciary has become the supreme branch, more like rule by Oligarchy. We on the right have been complaining about this for years. Finally, after the Republicans ram through 8 years conservitive judges, the left may wake up and see our point. I suppose it is all according to whose ox is being gored.

Democrats did not go nuclearbecause they never had a judge filibustered.

Democrats did not go nuclearbecause they never had a judge filibustered.

Care to expand on that, Peter? The Republicans have NEVER filibustered a judicial nomination? Is that because they let a nomination they opposed go through or because the President in those cases withdrew a nomination rather than prolong the process and keep the Senate from the need to go through a filibuster?
Or have the Democrats never gone “nuclear” because of the danger of destroying rules regarding balance of power?

Nostradamus-
There really isn’t an easy way out of the problem of tyranny. I think the response I posed to that Kentucky Jon covers my attitude on this. I think the advances in technology have changed society, compressing distance in terms of travel, and eliminating much of its effect on the speed of communication. Matters that use to remain largely in state, and even in country now affect much more territory.

Technology has also changed the kinds of issues we deal with. George Washington never had to deal with radioactive toxic waste, or television, cable and satellite. The science of the weather was a generalized fancy at best, and the planets and stars beyond were an unattainable dream.

Times have changed, and fortunately the founding fathers gave the heirs to their Republic the ability to change with them, within reasonable limits. The tipping of the balance towards greater federalism is in part a response to the needs of our country, and splintering that power will not necessarily bring positive results

As with many conversations of this nature, it seems that we may be somewhat off track because some appear to have forgotten that words have meanings. I am of the opinion that in order to have a constructive conversation everyone needs to be working from a common understanding or definition of the item being discussed or debated. In this case I believe the sticking point is the term Filibuster

For example some of the most commonly understood definitions of filibuster are: A filibuster is a delaying tactics to prevent action on a bill. In the Senate, which has a tradition of “extended” debate, a member may filibuster by speaking continuously (reading from the telephone directory, if it is so desired). But a member also retains the floor while yielding to a colleague for a question or by calling for the presence of a quorum (which necessitates a roll call). If the Senate recesses, a member regains the floor when the Senate reconvenes… Another definition of Filibuster is: A time-delaying tactic associated with the Senate and used by a minority in an effort to delay, modify or defeat a bill or amendment that probably would pass if voted on directly. The most common method is to take advantage of the Senate�s rules permitting unlimited debate. A third definition of Filibuster is: a tactic for delaying or obstructing legislation by making long speeches.

I would like to draw your attention to the section in the first definition that states “by speaking continuously.” In this definition continuously means - “without any break or interruption.” In the second definition a key point is “that probably would pass if voted on directly.” Even in the third definition, the verb phrase “by making long speeches” requires action on the part of the filibusterers.

I am of the opinion that this is what causes most of the opposition to what is taking place in the Senate. In other words if someone wants to filibuster let them, but the body as a hole should not be denied the opportunity to vote on the subject simply because of a threat of or a misapplication of a parliamentary rule. Educated reason and not indoctrinated reaction in all matters is imperative, as one can lead to reasoned understanding of an issue and/or others points of view, while the other tends to result in emotional reactions and deadlock. Remember that we are more united then divided on most issues. Think and Listen for all our sakes.

Peter,
That’s wrong. The Republicans filibustered Abe Fortas, an LBJ nomination.

…the body as a hole should not be denied the opportunity to vote on the subject simply because of a threat of or a misapplication of a parliamentary rule.

Rick, I disagree. If the issue was such a good idea, it would be easy to get enough votes to override a filibuster.

Educated reason and not indoctrinated reaction in all matters is imperative…

Of course. Why would you think otherwise? And what makes you think that’s not what’s happening?

Is it so hard to understand that tens of millions of Americans don’t want ultra-conservative “activist” judges, just as they don’t want ultra-liberal “activist” judges?

The Republicans used other delaying tactics on Clinton nominees, tactics a majority can use instead of a minority, by simply avoiding votes. I think it was something like 60 nominees over two terms, so the complaint that “the president needs his nominees approved” didn’t apply in Clinton’s case.

Minorities need the protection that rules like the filibuster offers. Just like when we enter into a treaty to, say, allow foreign embassies to visit prisoners from their countries who are jailed in the US, it’s a protection to our citizens when they are jailed in another country. A protection for minorities is just good sense for those who, though now in the majority, may become a minority in the future (especially when they’re running the country like this bunch of crooks).

Ed

what is should the US position be on Venezuela?

Excellent point, Ed. I saw this somewhere,

There was an Englishman named Thomas More. He is most famous for refusing to approve Henry VIII’s divorce, and paying for his principles with his head.

In the play about More’s life titled A Man for All Seasons, More debates a character named Roper, who wants to ignore the law to fight evil:

Roper: So now you’d give the devil the benefit of law?

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?

Roper: I’d cut down every tree in England to do that.

More: Oh, and when the last law was down and the devil turned on you where would you hide, Roper, all the laws being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, man’s laws not God’s, and if you cut them down - and you’re just the man to do it - do you really think that you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the devil the benefit of the law, for my own safety’s sake.

For the sake of headlines and self-righteousness, the U.S. Congress waited until the final seconds of a years-long, agonizing legal process to say that our law does not count. Many well-meaning people are cheering. And so one more tree falls.

American Pundit, First of all, you still did not address the fact that a filibuster is and should be an active process. Secondly, you are asking me to prove a negative; while I am asking that there be some justification for disregarding the intent of the filibuster as it is defined. Having defined what a filibuster is/was, I ask again, why the filibuster should be misused as it is now?

This is where the educated not indoctrinated reaction concept comes into play. I did not nor do I support this “use” of the filibuster by either party in the manner in which it is being used. Yes, that means it is my position that the Republican�s should not use the filibuster in this way and when done so I am in equal opposition.

At what point have I stated or taken a position that Americans want any ultra-conservative, or ultra-liberal “activist” judges? My discussion is about the process. For the record, I agree with your assumption regardless of the numbers you may cite to support it. As it relates to “activist” judges, my position is that I simply want judges; not activists of any kind. Please note that if it wasn�t for political wrangling in 1803 we might be having a different conversation relative to “activist” judges. I am referring to Marbury v. Madison as many would point to this case as the genesis of “activist” courts, be their decisions good or ill.

Marbury v. Madison, is the landmark case in US law wherein the Supreme Court established judicial review as a legitimate power of the Court on constitutional grounds. The Court ruled that it had the power to declare a statute void that it considered in contravention to the Constitution. Marbury established the judiciary as an equal partner among the three branches of government. Taking no position, I would ask you to share your thoughts as to why, political wrangling notwithstanding, it took the Court 12 years to find this power not given it in the Constitution?

We must seek common ground and I am still of the opinion that this is possible when we work from reduced emotion in our positions and discourse. If your concern is that we as a people are not lorded over by a majority (simply because they are the majority), I would concur. But in order to maintain order and civility, we must maintain clearly defined procedures in the support of the rule of law. When any law or procedure fails to serve the common good, or as a people we want to change it, we should, but in an open and forthright way. But change should not be a result of simply ignoring or redefining the subject, regardless if all parties involved acquiesce by their silence. I look forward to your reply.

I’m sorry Rick. I just don’t see any misuse of the filibuster going on. If the issue is so self-evidently good, then get 60 Senators to break it. That shouldn’t be too hard.

You say you don’t want activist judges of any stripe, but chucking the filibuster would see them appointed. You’re either being a little dishonest, or you need to look at this particular issue a little closer.

As this was my first foray into the world of blogs, I hoped to learn more about what formulated peoples thinking behind their positions. I am beginning to see that this was idealistic. Despite attempts to focus on what a filibuster is as defined by multiple sources, lengthy explanations of my thinking, it seems as if somehow I have been unclear. I did not state that the filibuster should be done away with, I have not presumed to know another’s mind, nor have I questioned anyone’s honesty.

I agree with the others, that this issue can cut both ways and it will. That is why, at least in this conversation, I have tried to focus on the general topic not the on going drama in the Senate. How strong ones reasoning must be to support their position by repeating their own question, while ignoring the original point (i.e. a filibuster is an active heroic action not a mere threat). If the Senate would actually have a filibuster, what an education it could be, it might even get the Schiavo case off the front page. But sadly, it seems that there are no heroes in the Senate.

Rick, welcome to the world of blogs. If you want to know why people take a particular stance on something just ask. Are you saying that someone should have been a hero and filibustered “Terri’s Law”? That would have been political suicide for anybody.

Maybe I’m overly sensative to tricky right-winger rhetorical traps, but it sounds like you’re bashing Democrats for not committing political suicide.

Or maybe your post is a little too oblique for me. I’d love to help you out, because there’s nothing bloggers like to do more than talk about how smart they are. In 25 words or less, what do you hope to learn about?

If I may briefly go back to the original post and it’s coverage of Mr. Byrd’s comparison of the issue to the Nazi/Hitler ascendancy in Germany in 1933, I would like to say that such useage is a common scare tactic of the last few decades in politics throughout the world (think Bosnia etc in the 1990’s - they used it against former President Clinton.). It is true that Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party came to power legally, if marginally so. But the situation that allowed that to happen, one of hate, fear and despair, fostered on the abject conditions of the country left by their loss in WWI just don’t exist in the USA. Therefore, any comparison that attempts to have us believe that we are headed down the same path ultimately does not hold water. Those who make such claims likely are not well educated in that particular segment of history; for those who want to know more, I recommend reading William L. Shirer’s “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”.

For the record, I took the same position when the Senate “filibustered” President Clinton’s nominees. And yes I wanted the spirit of the filibuster followed then as well, regardless if it would have resulted in the “political suicide” of a “public servant.” (Duty, honor and integrity above self in public office, is it too much to ask (of course it is, but it shouldn’t be.) When there is a Democratic administration in 2009, which there will be, my position will be the same.

You have a point about “Terri’s Law.” I concur because; it would have changed the process in place, i.e. that her spouse should have the final word, regardless of what some think about his motives or character. This practice should not be changed because of this one case, regardless if a court finds it “unconstitutional,” the law was wrong. It should be up to the voters to remove the politicians that passed the law. I know this requires a diligent citizenry, but I think we have established that I’m idealistic.

Those who make such claims likely are not well educated in that particular segment of history

Haha! Robert, I think Byrd was there. Let me put it this way, I’d take Byrd’s word over yours on this because he actually is a historian. Unless you’re going to tell me that you’re really John Keegan, I think he’s got your partisan dismissal beat.

Haha! Robert, I think Byrd was there. Let me put it this way, I’d take Byrd’s word over yours on this because he actually is a historian. Unless you’re going to tell me that you’re really John Keegan, I think he’s got your partisan dismissal beat.

Just because he was there does not mean he understood what was actually going on. There were a great many humans rooked by the Nazi movement. And no I’m not John Keegan, but you seem by this to say that William L. Shirer is not qualified on this but Keegan is? I read both, and they are excellent historians. As for partisan dismissal, you seem to be the partisan here. I never took sides, just pointed out the truth of history. I am well studied in European history in the period 1900-1950, with particular emphasis on Nazi Germany, so you’re going to have to do better than trying to make this some sort of a partisan issue. Good day.