Democrats & Liberals: Archives

AP -

Why do you give Reid credit? I haven’t seen any indication in the news that Reid had anything to do with the compromise, or that he didn’t discourage his members from bolting in the same way Frist did. Mind you, he now has seven members who are voting outside of party discipline on this, and that may be something he’s intensely uncomfortable about. It’s hard to see how Reid gets much credit for this.

I think the credit for Reid is due for holding the line. The point of any negotiation is to have an extreme position to allow for compromise on those points that aren’t absolutely essential to getting what you want. Reid played the role well and the settlement appears to favor the Democrats more than the Republicans.

Chops, it’s pretty much the same deal Reid offered Frist a couple weeks ago, and look at his reaction: “This is really good news,” and it’s “a significant victory for our country.” Did Reid at any time say he was displeased with the negotiations or the outcome? Nope. Reid got what he wanted, and I can’t think of any other way he could have done it. Brilliant.

Frist was trying to get rid of the filibuster before Rehnquist retires. Now we have a bunch of Republican’s signatures on an agreement that will keep him from doing it. Victory.

Mind you, he now has seven members who are voting outside of party discipline on this, and that may be something he’s intensely uncomfortable about.

I’m sure you’re talking about Frist here. He’s definitely got to be feeling uncomfortable. He was under a lot of pressure from Christian groups to force an up-or-down vote on all the nominations. He didn’t get it.

This is exactly the problem with politics.

Politics is the art of the compromise. Nobody gets exactly what he wants, but sometimes the compromise creates a synergy greater than the sum of the parts.

I read about the compromise in the (liberal) Washington Post this morning. It seems to me the story of a courage group of moderates who managed to give the more extreme people on in their respective parties what they need, if not what they want. It establishes more formally the gentlemen’s agreement in place before this particular Congress where the filibuster is (to quote Clinton in a different context) safe, legal and rare.

I was happy with the outcome.

Now I read that it is a victory for the Democrats. I personally don’t think that it is, since it is contingent on good behavior by the Dems, that is all moderate Republicans wanted. But even if it were a clear victory, it is bad manners and foolish to bring it up. The objective conditions haven’t changed. There are still only 44 Democrats. Should the fight be rejoined, the disposition of forces is identical and not in the Dems favor. If you win in such a situation, it is best to keep it to yourself. After the clever used car salesman reams you, he is smart enough to not to say “in your face”.

In elections, politics are all about a zero sum game of winning and losing. In governing, politics is all about a positive sum game of compromise. (But, by the way, compromise does not mean that 44 = 56. Refer the sentence above on elections.) Compromise requires civility that we are rapidly loosing (or have lost).

That is why it has become so hard to compromise. Any compromise is trumpeted as a sell out or defeat. That is exactly what is wrong with politics today.

As I reread my post, it may be unclear. What is wrong is not the compromise, but the idea that we should look for winners.

Jack says: “It establishes more formally the gentlemen’s agreement in place before this particular Congress where the filibuster is (to quote Clinton in a different context) safe, legal and rare.”

That’s a great summary.

For that reason, I disagree that the Dems “won” here. They avoided a big loss (judicial filibusters, and potentially all filibusters) and took a small loss (confirmation of two far-right judges that had been rejected before). A morale booster - yes. Major progress towards any goal - no.

The victory is for Senate moderates, who have emerged as a real force - it only takes 12 acting together to block either side from accomplishing much of anything. Which I think is great - Reds have been going a little crazy since their slim victories in 2004, it’s way past time to slow that pendulum down a bit.

You sound like a sore loser, Jack. But Reid never said, “In your face!”. That was me. :)

And don’t get all riled up with the feigned outrage. I can’t remember the last time Republicans made a plea for compromise like you just did. Usually it’s just “Sit down and shut up, minority party.”

Well, Reid pulled off a coup, but he won’t be doing the victory dance in the endzone. He’s too classy for that.

BTW, it’s funny to hear Reid being called an ultra-liberal by the sore losers. He’s anti-abortion, and next to Zell Miller, he’s the most conservative Senator we’ve got… So, in your face! :)

Any compromise is trumpeted as a sell out or defeat. That is exactly what is wrong with politics today.

Well said. The last thing Dems should do is trumpet this as a “victory.” It’s a compromise and a temporary true on the subject of judical filibusters. Touting it as anything more almost guarantees the moderates lose over the long haul.

Did they have to use all the cots that were wheeled in. That made a terrific news story. I fully expected someone to be cooking meatballs and pasta as they settled in for the long haul. Oh well, another historic opportunity missed.

AP

I’m sure you’re talking about Frist here. He’s definitely got to be feeling uncomfortable. He was under a lot of pressure from Christian groups to force an up-or-down vote on all the nominations. He didn’t get it.

Might be that he is not done yet. All he has to do is pass Owens through and bring in Saad or Myers and put the ‘Deal’ to the test.

I’m interested to see what happens with Saad. In the FOX News article I linked, Reid says, “All you need to do is have a member go upstairs and look at his confidential report from the FBI and I think you would all agree that there’s a problem there.”

AP

Outrage is something I rarely feel and I am not outraged now.

I am partisan and ideological, but I recognize the limitations of those things. I have been party to many negotiations where I am sure I won big. But I do my best to ensure that my opponent thinks the same thing. You can’t enforce an agreement if the opponent thinks it is untenable.

The other point is bigger. We have often decried the fact that the center is being squeezed out of politics. The extremists in their own camps have pushed politicians not to compromise. We have seven Republicans who have shown the courage to be moderate. They will face criticism from their own less temperate allies. The victory dance makes their lives harder. If you want to kill moderation, you just have to make it impossible to be a moderate.

You could probably rightly characterize this as a defeat for Frist. But it is not a defeat for Republicans. Those seven Republican Senators don’t think so.

You can’t enforce an agreement if the opponent thinks it is untenable.

HELLO! I’m a Democrat. No shit. :)

Jack, you’re absolutely right that a defeat for ultra-wacko Frist is a victory for the Republican Party and for America.

…And especially for us moderates.

AP, you are now participating in pure partisan spin, my friend. Democrats as a party won nothing here. They have not won the battle over judicial filibusters, they have just delayed it to be fought again another day, perhaps sooner than later. They lost big time in that 3 of the nominees they were so vehemently opposed to, will very likely get approval by the Senate and go on to become potential Supreme Court nominees.

Reid was NOT part of the deal, and he was undercut by his own moderate 7 as Frist was by his 7.

So, you may want to come back to earth here, and accept the fact that the only winner here, albeit temporarily, was the Senate’s traditional manner of doing business. Those Senators who fear the slippery slope of abolition of the filibuster have won only a temporary reprieve. Nothing more.

William:
“I disagree that the Dems “won” here. They avoided a big loss (judicial filibusters, and potentially all filibusters) and took a small loss (confirmation of two far-right judges that had been rejected before). A morale booster - yes. Major progress towards any goal - no.”

I agree this doesn’t seem like a major win — to me it seems more like a small political victory. And of course, We the People lose bigtime — because what else can we call it when a rightwing judicial activist like Owen gets a lifetime appointment to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeal? And the similarly horrible Pryor and Brown are sure to follow.

I’m left wondering about the idea that future judicial nominations will “only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances” by the Dems.
Seems kind of iffy, doesn’t it? Does this mean only Supreme Court appointments only?
Frist is saying that the “constitutional option” is still on the table and that he “will monitor this agreement closely.”
So, if it’s still on the table, and involves conditions that must be upheld by the Dems, this all seems very much as William said — no major progress.

It may be a victory in this narrow battle, but not in the big scheme of things. The only ones who can halt the conservative momentum damaging this country are the republicans themselves - by over-reaching. If the democrats force them to govern somewhat reasonably, the much hoped for backlash will only be avoided. Things must get worse before they get better

Tom G, I wish that were not true, but, I used to wish Santa Claus was real too!

Big victory for the Democrats!

Owens, Pryor, and Rodgers get a vote, they will pass(not too extream), 2 openings for sure comming up for the USSC, Owens and Pryor for the USSC anyone?
They wern’t radical before, ya can’t block them now, that would blow your deal!

Harry Reid should be dancing in the street over his big win.

I don’t see how anyone could call this compromise anything except blackmail. Personally, I want to see what the Republicans call “extraordinary circumstances”. That can mean almost anything. Maybe the nominee is on his death bed?….etc. Two years of “allowing” filibusters to continue is NOT a compromise, it is a matter of governmental rules. It is not a gift bestowed by the Republicans, but a right given to all people in the constitution.

Our constitution (REPULBIC) uses the checks and balances form of government to insure that no official group can completely run the government.

By challenging the filibuster rules, the Republicans would be in effect changing the constitutional foundation of our REPULBIC. And, I ask you where would this abuse of power end? A fifty-one percent vote could change the entire governmental laws - once passed, where does it stop?

I emphasize the REPULBIC, because like it or not that is how our government is actually structured. WE are NOT and NEVER have been a DEMOCRACY. The true sense of the of the word REPULBIC means to represent the people of one’s district and the people of the UNITED STATES, not one party or the other, even if one doesn’t agree with the voters. From what I’ve been able to tell, those few persons who even know or care what a filibuster is are completely against changing the rules. Where is the representation for that?

Just something to think about while the Democrats “celebrate” I do believe they got suckered.

Let’s take a moment to put the compromise in political perspective. Please keep in mind I’m referring to the most recent polls, not to the merits of any particular issue.

Why did those seven Republicans bolt their party, and what does it mean?

Political fact: Bush is a lame duck. His approval numbers are in the mid-forties percent, unusually low for a president just six months after election. His major domestic initiative on SSI is stalled. In fact, the more the SSI ideas are pushed, the lower the poll approval readings drop.

The approval ratings for Congress are abysmally low, in the 33% range. Remember, this a Congress with a Republican majority, and Frist is the Senate Majority Leader.

The Republican right has taken a pounding in the polls on several issues, Schiavo among others. Again, remember, unlike Bush these Republican congressman will be running for re-election, and there will be no coattails in the midterms.

It’s very early, but two apparent contenders for the Republican nomination are Frist & McCain.

As I mentioned in comments in the red column last night, Frist is courting the social conservatives in his presidential bid. McCain is courting the moderates.

Reid repeatedly approached Frist about a compromise over the nuclear option. Frist repeatedly rejected this. Frist chose the issue. Frist chose the fight. To bring it off, Frist needed enough Republican unity to corral 50 votes. There are 55 Republicans, and 45 Democrats in the Senate (including an independent).

Warner & Byrd provided political cover for the Republican moderates, along with the seven moderates.

The seven Democrat moderates never mattered. Their seven votes were irrelevant, since they belonged to the minority party. They are cover, nothing more, nothing less.

The defection of those seven moderates on a high profile issue represents a huge setback for Frist and the right. It also represents a poke in the eye for Frist, delivered seven stooges style by his competitor, McCain. Frist is absolutely steaming. He wants to keep pushing, but he’ll end up getting hit over the head with a frying pan if he loses public votes on the Senate floor.

In addition, Senators are calling for Bush to consult with them before making nominations.

Make no mistake; these people read polls. Bush and the right wing are in a heap o’ trouble. Republicans, moderate and right alike, are looking at an electoral debacle in the midterms. For the first time, moderate Republicans are very publicly distancing themselves from Frist and the right wing.

Given a weak hand, Reid has split the opposition, and set them at each other’s throats. Reid wanted a compromise all along, he achieved it, and Reid’s machinations have dealt the Republicans a very serious, very public blow.

It’s simply brilliant politics.

Big winners in terms of the strategic picture: Reid, McCain, and yes, indirectly, Hillary Clinton.

Dang, this guy Reid is good. Truly, I thought he would be too conservative, just another ‘get along and go along’ Dem. Instead, he’s been kicking butt. I’m just amazed.

Reid for President? Wow, I never thought I’d type that. But you’ve got to admire this guy’s political acumen.

This deal gives me hope that our government has not completely lost it. I think that AP is right, this is the best deal for the Democrats that could be expected. The deal effectively blocked two of the judges, while with the nuclear option, they would have all passed.
I think that there are also several other factors that benefit the democrats, and Reid in particular. The democrats got to demonstrate that they still have power, without going down the self-defeating route of shutting down the government, and looking strong without being labelled obstructionist. They got to portray Frist as a radical. Reid, who offered a similar deal earlier, looks good since this arrangement forced concessions out of the Republicans, avoided the nuclear option, and he avoided having to be a pro-choice hardliner, which would alienate his constituency.
Basically, I think this deal is great. Anything that encourages compromise and gives the moderates more influence is good in my book.

Justice Janice Rogers Brown received 76 percent of the vote in California, hardly a right-wing state.

The Dems never should have opposed her. Thomas Sowell thinks it is because she is black. Interesting argument. See the link

Jack,
These kind of vague, hateful, unattributed smears against liberals & Democrats are so… I don’t know… so very Rush Limbaugh.

Here’s a link detailing reasons liberals oppose her. Regardless of whether you agree with the reasons, the opposition is based upon politics, not race.

http://saveourcourts.civilrights.org/nominees/details.cfm?id=16978

Jack,
We all know that Janice Rogers received 76% of the vote. She’s not running against anyone but herself. All of us head to the polls and just put in that we approve of a judge unless there is a case that has received a lot of publicity and we disagree with the judges decision. I don’t think the Dem’s should have opposed her either, but the approval rating doesn’t prove that.

Reid just kick butt. He is humble, very moderate, opposes the Democratic party on key issues such as abortion, and you just get the feeling from the guy that he really wants to just help the country move forward. I’m also glad to see the moderate senators working together to take control of the senate. These are the politicians who have the real power.

Jack said: “Justice Janice Rogers Brown received 76 percent of the vote in California, hardly a right-wing state.”

I don’t know about California, but, here in Texas almost no one voting knows anything about the judges they vote for. They vote by party for judges. One study of exit polls showed only 6% of voters exiting could even recall the name of the judges they voted for just minutes before.

Phx8

All joking aside, I don’t have a problem with those things she decided. In fact, reading this makes me more favorably disposed to the woman. Just to tick through the points in the article:

I am glad she makes affirmative action meet a higher standard. The idea of a hostile work environment is a slippery slope. I think employers should have a right to test for drugs. I am suspicious of court awards of emotional distress. Is she overturned on appeal more than most other judges?

Jack,
As a conservative on the California Supreme Court, she occasionally has been the sole dissenting opinion. So, she’s been outvoted, but she’s not been in the position of having her rulings overturned.
From what I can gather, opposition to her is motivated by politics.

AP
Amusing lines from Rude Pundit about Frist losing the fight for the nuclear option:

“There’s the gratifying spectacle of Bill Frist going down in flames, flailing about in the Senate chamber, trying to swat the fires from his clothes as he expressed disappointment and felt his stomach heave at the hell to come for him.”

The awesome power of the Supreme Court has had a moderating effect on a great many judges once they arrive and are faced with a working relationship of another 8 judges of equal standing who will be quick to point out the consequences short and long for making decisions one way or another.

For the most part, this effect has served the American people and government well, activism or no.

Jack:
Re: Janice Rogers Brown
“I don’t have a problem with those things she decided. In fact, reading this makes me more favorably disposed to the woman.”

In my opinion, Janice Rogers Brown is a complete rightwing nutcase. And the reason we should be upset with her nomination has nothing to do with politics, but has everything to do with the woman herself.

Brown has been nominated to the court that oversees the actions of federal agencies responsible for worker protections, environmental laws (so far she is being opposed by 35 national and state environmental groups), and civil rights and consumer protections, and yet, she intends to use that seat on the bench to wage an ideological war against America’s social safety net and take America back to the 19th Century by killing off anything which has to do with the New Deal (she despises FDR and Social Security) including such as vital protections as the minimum wage. Additionally, she has made no secret of her complete disdain for government in general and her opposition to any kind of regulation which might affect corporate and financial interests.
In her view: “Where government moves in…, the result is a debased, debauched culture, which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible.”
She has described the New Deal as “the triumph of our socialist revolution” and has praised an infamous line of Supreme Court cases from 1905 to 1937 which struck down worker health and safety laws as infringing on the rights of business.

She is totally against a woman’s right to choose whether or not she will be a mother, in fact, she is so against the idea of women guiding their own reproductive destinies with the aid of their doctors, that in California she voted against assuring women equal coverage for contraception.
Brown is a far right religious zealot who appeared on “Justice Sunday” where she said: “It�s not a shooting war, but it is a war�. These are perilous times for people of faith, not in the sense that we are going to lose our lives, but in the sense that it will cost you something if you are a person of faith who stands up for what you believe in and say those things out loud.”
She then went on to complain about atheistic humanism crowding out religion in America and said that humanists are to blame for a certain kind of moral relativism that is pervading the country.

Also, just to make clear that I’m not alone in my feelings about Brown, you all may want to be aware that she received a “Not Qualified” rating from the California Judicial Commission when she was nominated for the California Supreme Court in 1996. Why you may ask? Oh, simply because of her “tendency to interject her political and philosophical views into her opinions” and because they had received so many complaints that she was insensitive to established legal precedent, that’s all. � �

Now, if anyone here doesn’t believe me when I say that Brown is a complete rightwing nutcase, and the poorest choice possible for the position she has been nominated for, then they may want read some more choice bits of shite she has previously spewed:
Janice Rogers Brown: In Her Own Words

phx8, good url on Brown. I’m going to make it a link and also show the list of organizations opposed to her:

The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Strongly Opposes the Confirmation of Janice Rogers Brown

Organizations Opposed to Brown

David, you are absolutely right. This is a victory for America. No doubt.

Phx8, excellent post.

Justice Janice Rogers Brown… The Dems never should have opposed her.

Jack, you don’t get it. Dems are the minority party. Dems never would have been able to block every wacko GOP nominee. Owens doesn’t matter. Brown doesn’t matter. Pryor doesn’t matter.

What matters is, a bi-partisan group gave Reid the same deal Frist turned down a couple weeks ago.

What matters is that Dems just raised the bar for killing the filibuster. That particular threat is no longer in Frist’s hands. When Rehnquist retires, we can use it if necessary.

What matters is that a bi-partisan message was sent to the Bush White House: Don’t send any more radical activist judges as nominees.

What matters is that Reid got seven well-respected conservative Republicans to split from the wacko GOP leadership.

This deal spotlights the difference between the conservative wing of the GOP and the wacko wing. Collins, Snowe, McCain, even Gramm can all chalk this one up as a victory for conservatives over social fundamentalists - for mainstream conservatism over the Bible-thumping literalists who don’t care about busting the budget as long as the money is doing God’s work. This is exactly the GOP split on which I tried to start a dialogue a couple weeks ago.

And as a bonus, Reid split the opposition. The choice before Republican voters in 06 is going to be (1) wacko Republicans, (2) conservative Republicans, and (3)moderate Democrats. The choice for Democrats is going to be… Democrats. Brilliant!

Don’t count your Horses yet. Frist and a few others intend to force the more crazy Judges to the vote first. It may be a filibuster yet.

Thanks for the links, Adrienne. I can see why the arch conservatives are head-over-heels in love with Brown. She sounds like a cross between an Ayn Rand acolyte and an AM talk radio shock jock. It definitely doesn’t sound like she’d be bringing an “objective” point of view to her decisions. Still, I’d like to know more about the actual decisions she’s made. Maybe Americans will start paying greater attention to these nominations as a result of the filibuster fights. And if that happens, perhaps it’s worth all the grief.

The real winners here are the American public. We finally, hopefully have a block of moderates who can “moderate” the debate on most any topic and keep the far right or far left from imposing their fanatical views on us.

I don’t think either set of leadership won. I think you are seeing an impromptu, informal third party flexing its muscle to tell the alleged majority/minority “leaders” to sit down and shut up.

Chi Chi, I hope that’s true on the right. I still find it funny to hear Reid - an anti-abortion, old-school, conservative Democrat - referred to as liberal.

And in practical terms, the “moderates” agreed to pretty much the same deal Reid offered Frist a couple weeks ago. Seeing as how Reid was so giddy over the sucess of the negotiations (as opposed to bitter, like Frist), either Reid is a brilliant strategist, or Reid is a moderate. Both, is my guess.

As a Christian, it disturbs me when people of my faith talk about waging a culture war. Don’t they remember their beatitudes? You know, like “Blessed are the Peacemakers, they will be called the Children of God”?

We shouldn’t be starting wars in our society, we should be making our peace with those who do not share our beliefs. Otherwise, we begin to be Christian to those who are like us, and another person entirely to those who aren’t. We should present one face to society, and that is a face of love and compassion.

I’m sorry Stephen. What, exactly, are you referring to?

I’m referring to some things that Janice Rogers Brown said, as quoted by Adrienne in one of her posts above. I’m just sick of the all the culture war junk. One, it’s created a great deal of resentment and fear about my chosen religion, and two, it’s been damn ineffective if you ask me. In the decades since they’ve started this whole fight against secular humanism, they’ve only succeeded in aggravating the impulse in our society towards objectionable material. Porn on the internet, Sex and Violence on TV- they haven’t made a dent. They’ve only compromised themselves by taking political sides, and now they’re beginning to wreck even that.

They have forgotten that the ultimate fate of those who fight perpetual wars, is to ultimately make an enemy of everyone. True Christian doctrine is that there is no us and them, only us. You are supposed to love your enemy and make your peace with him.

I think the Religious Right would do far better if it remembered the teachings, and not just the impulse to make those teachings the standard. When it comes to religion, you can be your religions best advertisement, or its worse. It’s your choice.

Yeah, I always thought the culture wars was a hippies vs. squares thing. Before my time, anyhow.

Like Mario Van Peeble’s character says to Clint Eastwood in my favorite movie, “You been freeze-dried, or doin’ hard time? There ain’t been no hippies ‘round here for centuries, man.”

Wise words, Stephen.
Exactly the kind of thinking we should never expect to hear from Fundamentalist Rightwing Evangelical Christians, or Janice Rogers Brown. You sound more like a sober, level headed judge than she does.

Reed:
“She sounds like a cross between an Ayn Rand acolyte and an AM talk radio shock jock.”

Good call.
In Ralph Neas opinion: “She embodies Clarence Thomas’s ideological extremism and Antonin Scalia’s abrasiveness and right-wing activism. Giving her a powerful seat on the DC Circuit Court would be a disaster.”

“It definitely doesn’t sound like she’d be bringing an “objective” point of view to her decisions.”

Like I said, she’s a complete rightwing nutcase — someone who doesn’t care what We the People want or need, because she’s got an Extreme Rightwing, Fundamentalist Evangelical Christian Agenda to ram through.

“Still, I’d like to know more about the actual decisions she’s made.”

Here is a bit more on the kind of decisions she has made, from a Joint press release from People for the American Way and the NAACP. If you don’t feel like reading the whole thing, scroll down a bit to reach the part where they go over her decisions.
To get the full, in depth report on Brown, you can check out People for the American Way’s “Loose Cannon Report”.

“Maybe Americans will start paying greater attention to these nominations as a result of the filibuster fights. And if that happens, perhaps it’s worth all the grief.”

I don’t know Reed, we’ll still have to deal with the fact that someone like her has a LIFETIME APPOINTMENT in which to push her agenda.

Holy crap!
A judge that actually believes in the 2nd Amendment:)
The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

kctim:
“A judge that actually believes in the 2nd Amendment:)”

Tim, I might’ve known you’d focus only on that one thing. (We’ve had that discussion a long time ago, and you know I don’t want to abolish the 2nd amendment.) Any other thoughts on Brown? What do think of her ignoring legal precedents, or ignoring the rulings of the Supreme Court in favor of her own opinions? What do you think of her anti-consumer and anti-civil rights stances?

Reading through the saveourcourts site I didn’t see any problem with her until I saw this:

Also, Brown’s dissent in People v. Ray would have allowed a warrantless search of a person’s home as part of law enforcement’s “community care taking functions,” ? an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against warrantless searches not recognized by the Supreme Court.

That is enough for me not to want her to be a judge. The refusal to not follow precident doesn’t bother me too much, since how else can precident be brought back to the view of the supreme court for review?

Adrienne
I didn’t focus on that one thing. I read the whole slanted report on her. I just knew that part would get you. :)

Like all judges, I disagree and agree with her.
Her views on affirmitive action make sense and her standing up for a persons rights to rent to who they wish to is long past due. Her stating that people should not be allowed to sue for “emotional distress” is admirable. That is one of the largest misjustices in today’s courts.
Her believing in the 2nd as it was written and meant is also admirable.

Then you have her views on workplace slurs and the illegal searches that SirisC just posted. Laughable to say the least.

Shes no different than the liberal judges that allow murders and rapists off with lenient sentences or who force a family off their land because of some stupid wetland status or booger-bug.

Judges dont carry out the law anymore, they make it. Both sides are guilty.

I think this compromise is a loss for the Democrats.

Judges dont carry out the law anymore, they make it.

I keep hearing about this but there is seldom is ever any proof provided. Could you please cite some specific cases that support this?

My take is that this notion that activist judges are making law is largely bogus. Judges have to interpret law and documents such as constitutions. This is a tough job and people are going to disagree about how it’s done. But I’m not sure it’s really the same as “making law.”

It’s not, Reed. The whole thing is right wing demagoguery to get popular support for stacking the courts with their own “activist” judges.

Everytime you hear someone say they want judges who will strictly interpret the Constitution, that person has bought into cynical social fundamentalist talking points.

kctim, nobody is trying to take away our guns. That’s just a hot-button wedge issue cynically used by GOP politicians. Try to name one piece of pending legislation or recent judicial ruling to support your fake victimhood.

I think this compromise is a loss for the Democrats.

How so, Joanna? There’s no way the minority party was going to block all of Bush’s wacko nominees. I think we made out far better than we could have expected.

We got the same deal Reid offered Frist a couple weeks ago, which Frist turned down,

I offered Senator Frist several options similar to this compromise, and while he was not able to agree, I am pleased that some responsible Republicans and my colleagues were able to put aside there differences and work from the center. I do not support several of the judges that have been agreed to because their views and records display judicial activism that jeopardize individual rights and freedoms. But other troublesome nominees have been turned down. And, most importantly, the U.S. Senate retains the checks and balances to ensure all voices are heard in our democracy and the Supreme Court make-up cannot be decided by a simple majority.

PLUS, we split the GOP, put a spotlight on the rift between traditional conservatives and the wacko social fundamentalists who run the GOP, and raised the bar for nuking the filibuster in anticipation of Bush nominating Hitler or Milosovic or Satan himself to the Supreme Court.

There was never going to be a complete victory for the minority party, but we did better than anyone expected - and the traditional conservatives in the GOP finally asserted themselves. Write ‘em a letter and thank ‘em.

Reed
U.S. District Judge Gary Lancaster
“Lancaster usurped the jury by ruling that the hard-core porn peddlers’ so-called right to privacy superceeded federal laws.”

He disregarded FEDERAL LAW and made HIS OWN decision.
Activist judge.

District Judge Jeffrey Neary
“granted a “dissolution of marriage”—i.e., a divorce—to two Sioux City lesbians who had obtained a Vermont “civil union.” It was a backhanded way of legitimizing gay “marriage” and “a clear-cut, blatant violation of state law” defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman”

He ignored STATE LAW and used HIS OWN opinion.
Activist judge.

There are many more, just google.

AP
“The whole thing is right wing demagoguery to get popular support for stacking the courts with their own “activist” judges”

So if the judges make a ruling that goes against the law and you agree with that ruling, its ok. But if you disagree with that ruling, then they are being an activist judge.
BOTH sides have activist judges that don’t follow the law.

“Try to name one piece of pending legislation or recent judicial ruling to support your fake victimhood”

Hmmm? The so-called assault weapons bill. The brady bills, 1 and 2, HR 250, HR 915, HR 964, S 118, S 433, HR 1706 etc…

Just because YOU or YOUR party agree with a bill or law does not make it Constitutional.

Adrienne,
The more I hear about Judge Brown, the more I like her. Please tell us more.

The so-called assault weapons bill. The brady bills, 1 and 2, HR 250, HR 915, HR 964, S 118, S 433, HR 1706 etc…

The Brady Bill!!! Dude, that was decades ago. And look at those other bills you listed,

HR 250 - the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005

HR 915 - The Cultural Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act

HR 964 - To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to recognize the services of respiratory therapists under the plan of care for home health services

S 118 - For the relief of Maria Cristina DeGrassi

S 433 - Reopen Reagan National to General Aviation Act

HR 1706 - To direct the Secretary of Energy to conduct a program in partnership with the private sector to accelerate efforts of domestic automobile manufacturers to manufacture commercially available competitive hybrid vehicle technologies in the United States.

They have nothing whatsoever to do with guns.

Seriously, kctim. When you guys go gittin all riled up over nothin, it’s no wonder people dismiss you as kooks. Get back to me when somebody really does try to take away our guns.

AP
Forgive my ignorance on how bills are named. My bad. I was not aware that they recycle bill numbers in such a way.
All of those I provided were anti 2nd Amendment bills.

“Get back to me when somebody really does try to take away our guns.”

I won’t waste your time by doing that. It is obviously not a right that you care about, so any violations are of no concern to you.
I will never understand how some people are willing to fight to the end for rights they agree with but are not willing to fight or care about the ones they don’t agree with.
Us dumb ole rednecks “gittin all riled up over nothin” when it comes to things like the brady bill etc… is no different than the way you smart, sofistimacated citie folks get all riled up over things like the Patriot Acts, flag burning legislation and the sorts.

I believe in ALL of our rights and I guess that is bad on here so I will not bore you, Adrienne and others with the violations of the ones that are not important to you all.

Again, I apologize for my ignorance on how often bill numbers change and such.

All of those I provided were anti 2nd Amendment bills.

From what era?

kctim, I’m a gun owner and I’d be concerned if someone was trying to take away my guns. But they’re not.

“I’m a gun owner and I’d be concerned if someone was trying to take away my guns. But they’re not.”

I’m an atheist and I would be very concerned if someone was trying to force religion on me. But they’re not.

See how that goes?
Was it a bygone era that Bush mentioned his gay marriage amendment? and therefore ignore what was said.
Why should we pay attention when “righty” organizations talk about bringing religion into govt but yet ignore “lefty” organizations who talk about and propose bills against the 2nd Amendment?

Howdy:
You won’t beleive this but I actually served in the defense of this great nation, having served 20 years on Active Duty(11.5 of those overseas) in the Army. I am a white male, in my 40’s, and a multiple gun owner, and proud of the fact that I am not a member of the NRA. Did I mention I am a registered DEMOCRAT. You probably won’t like me for this, but what is wrong with waiting a few days or even a week, or god forbid a month, to bring home that shiny new, stainless steel, nickle plated, remingchester cal.30-06? For which you will probably just shoot at squirrels, or other small non-threatening wildlife, such as rabbits or chipmonks. I can’t beleive the GOP and all their loonies (Read Moses aka…Charlton Heston), and their right-wing money actually let the Brady Bill pass in the first place. Shame really, it was named the Brady Bill, because the person it was named after….James Brady, the White House Press Secretary for then president (I cannot recall) GOP (Bow your heads) Ronald (tax the poor) Reagan. Was there ever a more loyal guy than James Brady? No, and what may I ask is his reward? Constant pain, desertion by his own GOP party for which he served so loyally. Oh, did I mention the fact he suffered a serious head wound that left him partially paralyzed for life. Sound like a guy you could get behind and support,,,Not Reagan and his GOP loyalists. They chose to let him and his wife wait 12 years before they allowed a watered down Brady Bill (signed into law by President Clinton, a democrat)to pass. If that’s how you reward loyalty, NO THANKS!

Why should we pay attention when “righty” organizations talk about bringing religion into govt but yet ignore “lefty” organizations who talk about and propose bills against the 2nd Amendment?

Because, as you clearly demonstrated a couple posts earlier, nobody is proposing bills against the second amendment.

Yep, NOBODY.

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/206444_guns04.html

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2004/Bills/A3500/3998_I1.HTM

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/gun13.html

http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/local/11379600.htm

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_constitution&Number=293291517#Post293291517

http://www.gunowners.org/108anatb.htm

The brady bill is old so its ok that it violates the 2nd?
NOBODY is proposing bills against “your version” of the 2nd Amendment? Probably true. But they are proposing bills against the REAL intention of the 2nd Amendment.
You just have to be willing to look.
As I said before, just because YOU are OK with giving up your right because you think its a good idea, does not make it Constitutional.