Inevitable Supreme Court battle?

[Atlanteax]

Guess no matter who Bush chooses... and if he has to choose again for Renquist...

The Democrats (spurred by PACs such as MoveOn) will drag it out longer than it ought to be?

:forehead:

.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3sca.htm

"Senate Judiciary Committee member Chuck Schumer got busy plotting away on the cellphone aboard a Washington, DC-New York Amtrak -- plotting Democrat strategy for the upcoming Supreme Court battle.

Schumer promised a fight over whoever the President’s nominee was: “It's not about an individual judge… It's about how it affects the overall makeup of the court.”

The chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee was overheard on a long cellphone conversation with an unknown political ally, and the DRUDGE REPORT was there!

Schumer proudly declared: “We are contemplating how we are going to go to war over this.”

Schumer went on to say how hard it was to predict how a Supreme Court justice would turn out: “Even William Rehnquist is more moderate than they expected. The only ones that resulted how they predicted were [Antonin] Scalia and [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg. So most of the time they've gotten their picks wrong, and that's what we want to do to them again.”

Schumer later went on to mock the “Gang of 14” judicial filibuster deal and said it wasn’t relevant in the Supreme Court debate.

“A Priscilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown style appointment may not have been extraordinary to the appellate court but may be extraordinary to the Supreme Court.”

By the time the train hit New Jersey, Schumer shifted gears and called his friend and “Gang of 14” member, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham.

The two talked in a very friendly manner about doing an event sometime this week together.

[xtc]

Up and down vote, what is so undemocratic about that?

[Warriorbird]

Faith based politics. What is so democratic about that?

[xtc]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Faith based politics. What is so democratic about that?

lol...if the people want it, everything. That is the beauty of democracy. This is the Senate and the House of the Representatives that the people voted for.

Up and down vote = democratic

[Ravenstorm]

The system was built to make sure that the majority couldn't have their way unopposed just because they have 1 more vote than the minority. On many instances, Republicans have prevented up and down votes on judicial nominees during the Clinton administration so lets not be hypocritical.

Raven

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
The system was built to make sure that the majority couldn't have their way unopposed just because they have 1 more vote than the minority. On many instances, Republicans have prevented up and down votes on judicial nominees during the Clinton administration so lets not be hypocritical.

Raven

...and Clinton used Cloture votes to force a vote. Perhaps a good option to use here.

[Warriorbird]

Except, curiously, there were a lot more Clinton judges blocked than Bush has blocked.

Oh yeah... and faith based politics goes against the beliefs of the Founding Fathers.

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Oh yeah... and faith based politics goes against the beliefs of the Founding Fathers.

where did the founding fathers write this?

[xtc]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Except, curiously, there were a lot more Clinton judges blocked than Bush has blocked.


Source please?

A Republican Senate and House may have voted down nominees but that isn't the same as filibusters.


Originally posted by Warriorbird
Oh yeah... and faith based politics goes against the beliefs of the Founding Fathers.

Where is this written? The First amendment protects religion from Government interference.

[Warriorbird]

No no. It protects government from RELIGIOUS interference.

Voted down equals blocked at least in my view.

[Artha]

Blocked, imo, means that they'd have been voted in if everyone involved in the voting was there. Voted down means they weren't.

[Forged]

Originally posted by xtc
Up and down vote, what is so undemocratic about that?

How about the whole balance of powers...thing?

People seem to forget that Republicans filibustered Clinton's nominees when the Democrats had control of Congress. Interestingly, they had no problem with it then...

I don't see why the Republicans in Congress are crying fowl over this? This kind of thing always happens. It's not a big deal.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Forged

Originally posted by xtc
Up and down vote, what is so undemocratic about that?

How about the whole balance of powers...thing?

People seem to forget that Republicans filibustered Clinton's nominees when the Democrats had control of Congress. Interestingly, they had no problem with it then...

I don't see why the Republicans in Congress are crying fowl over this? This kind of thing always happens. It's not a big deal.

Clinton used cloture votes to force a vote on nominees. I guess the Repubs should follow Clinton's example.

[Forged]

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Except, curiously, there were a lot more Clinton judges blocked than Bush has blocked.


Source please?

A Republican Senate and House may have voted down nominees but that isn't the same as filibusters.


Originally posted by Warriorbird
Oh yeah... and faith based politics goes against the beliefs of the Founding Fathers.

Where is this written? The First amendment protects religion from Government interference.

Here is a good reference:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A59877-2004Dec12?language=printer

Bush's approvals in his first term surpassed everyone's dating back to Reagan.

To put it in numbers, Bush had 10 of his first 227 nominees blocked, while Clinton had 60 of his blocked. I think that's pretty overwhelming.

[Warriorbird]

Thanks. I was lazy and late to help my wife get to church.

[Gan]

Looks like Judge John Roberts gets the nod for Associate Justice.

Edited to add his background:

EXPERIENCE

— on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since June 2003.

— one of President Bush's least contentious picks for the bench.

— former Rehnquist clerk, Roberts was associate counsel to President Reagan from 1982-86 and then served in the first Bush administration, arguing cases before the Supreme Court from 1989-93.

— during the Clinton administration, became a highly sought-after private lawyer in Supreme Court cases, representing clients such as the National Collegiate Athletic Association in a discrimination case, and carmaker Toyota in winning limits on a disabled workers claims.

— had been in line to join the appeals court in 1992, but nomination during the first Bush administration died in a Democratic-controlled Senate.

— 146 members of the D.C. Bar signed a letter urging his confirmation, including officials from the Clinton administration.

EDUCATION

— received his undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard.

PERSONAL

— 50 years old

— native of Buffalo, N.Y.

[Edited on 7-20-2005 by Ganalon]

[Ravenstorm]

Some of the far right are howling in frustration. I'm surprised Bush picked him. He might actually be as good a choice as Bush is capable of making. We'll find out.

Raven

[Farquar]

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Faith based politics. What is so democratic about that?

lol...if the people want it, everything. That is the beauty of democracy. This is the Senate and the House of the Representatives that the people voted for.

Up and down vote = democratic

U.S. Constitution
Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

____________________

With respect to the nominee, Judge Roberts is certainly qualified. The hearing will be a rigorous one though, if only to posture for the following impending nominees. Roberts has a short paper trail, but he seems like a decent jurist.

Edited to add:
Also notice the BLATANT Harvard-packing of the court. Damn those smug Ivy league bastards!

[Edited on 7-20-2005 by Farquar]

[Gan]

Yes... Damn them. Now if they were elitist ivy league bastards... we'd all be going to hell in a handbasket.

[Hulkein]

Elitist Ivy leaguers are able to test out of Hell, or so I heard.

They all pass, obviously.

[Back]

I like how this thread started out with an immediate volley of finger-pointing. Great way to close the gap on partisan politics.

[Hulkein]

Does it really make much of a difference in the real world if we, the posters of Gemstone IV: Players Corner Forum, successfully bridge the partisan gap?

[Gan]

I feel a group hug coming...

:grouphug:

[Valthissa]

Let me see if I can predict the future.

Opponents of the nomination will take cases that Roberts was involved in and ascribe to him personally the postions he took on behalf of his clients. The fact that this makes no logical sense will not deter them from claiming he is extreme in his views.

The above strategy seems to be popular for both political parties.


C/Valth

[Atlanteax]

Judging from my initial impression of the guy, I'm inclined to approve of him.

I'll have a stronger opinion when I get to read up on him while at work tomorrow.

[Ilvane]

He's not bad considering who Bush could have chosen. I do wish he had chosen a centrist leaning woman, but you can't win them all.

Some of his cases are a bit unnerving on the abortion front. They said on the news there were going to be a bunch of questions about a brief he signed when he was with the solicitor general's office saying Roe v. Wade should be overturned.


Aside from that, there isn't a lot bad to say about him. Not to mention that he has experience in front of the court having presented cases there.

-A

[Edited on 7-20-2005 by Ilvane]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Ilvane

Aside from that, there isn't a lot bad to say about him. Not to mention that he has experience in front of the court having presented cases there.

-A

[Edited on 7-20-2005 by Ilvane] So far so good from what I've read about him. We'll see...

[ElanthianSiren]

I believe I read that he had said that Roe should be overturned but he wasn't ready to mess with the precedent of it.

That makes me nervous. That is like saying, "I want to screw all of NY city, but I don't quite have enough condoms YET."

-M

[xtc]

Originally posted by Forged

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Except, curiously, there were a lot more Clinton judges blocked than Bush has blocked.


Source please?

A Republican Senate and House may have voted down nominees but that isn't the same as filibusters.


Originally posted by Warriorbird
Oh yeah... and faith based politics goes against the beliefs of the Founding Fathers.

Where is this written? The First amendment protects religion from Government interference.

Here is a good reference:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A59877-2004Dec12?language=printer

Bush's approvals in his first term surpassed everyone's dating back to Reagan.

To put it in numbers, Bush had 10 of his first 227 nominees blocked, while Clinton had 60 of his blocked. I think that's pretty overwhelming.

Your link is dead.

I asked where is written that faith based politics goes against the belief of the founding fathers. Certainly not in the Constitution.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Farquar

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Faith based politics. What is so democratic about that?

lol...if the people want it, everything. That is the beauty of democracy. This is the Senate and the House of the Representatives that the people voted for.

Up and down vote = democratic

U.S. Constitution
Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

____________________

With respect to the nominee, Judge Roberts is certainly qualified. The hearing will be a rigorous one though, if only to posture for the following impending nominees. Roberts has a short paper trail, but he seems like a decent jurist.

Edited to add:
Also notice the BLATANT Harvard-packing of the court. Damn those smug Ivy league bastards!

[Edited on 7-20-2005 by Farquar]

I was waiting for someone to post the first amendment. No one is trying to establish a religion so it doesn't apply.

[Latrinsorm]

I don't think the First Amendment is restricted to establishing a religion. Any law saying something like "Christianity is wrong" or "Islam only" would be unconstitutional. However, I don't believe a lawmaker saying "Christ tells me that racism is wrong, therefore racism should be illegal" is in violation of the First Amendment, so so-called "faith-based politics", if I understand the term correctly, aren't a problem.

It's a bit stickier for a judge, because from what I understand, judges are supposed to work only from previous laws/precedent, the most important being the Constitution. Therefore, if the precedent says racism is right, a judge cannot say that racism is wrong because Ahura Mazda said so (n.b: I am unaware if Ahura Mazda condones or condemns racism. I'm just using him as an example of a deity). I'm sure one of our legal scholars will be sure to inform me if I'm off the mark.

[Gan]

Ok, heres the list of questions posed by a Senator that all nominees seeking a Supreme Court Appointment should answer in his opinion, I think its up to the Judiciary Comittee to determine what he has to answer and what he doesnt but I could be mistaken. I'm posting them now, and will review them this afternoon since they look to be rather indepth at first glance.

source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163039,00.html

Schumer's Questions for Roberts
Tuesday, July 19, 2005

WASHINGTON — The following is a list of questions Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., wants a Supreme Court nominee to answer before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

1. First Amendment and Freedom of Expression:
What, if any, are the limitations on the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution?
- When can Government regulate public speech by individuals?
- When does speech cross the line between Constitutionally-protected free expression and slander?
- In what ways does the First Amendment protect the spending and raising of money by individuals in politics?
- Can Government regulate hate speech? What about sexually explicit materials?
Specifically:
- Do you agree with the landmark decision in NY Times v. Sullivan (1964), which held that public criticism of public figures is acceptable unless motivated by actual malice? Who do you believe constitutes a public figure under this standard?
- Do you believe the Supreme Court was correct to strike down the Communications Decency Act in Reno v. ACLU (1997) on the grounds that pornography on the Internet is protected by the First Amendment?
- What is your view on the distinction the Supreme Court drew in Republican Party v. White and McConnell v. FEC (2003) between contributions and expenditures in the course of political campaigns? Do you believe that it is legitimate to construe campaign expenditures as protected speech but not donations by individuals?

2. First Amendment and the Establishment Clause:
- Under the Establishment Clause, what, if any, is the appropriate role of religion in Government?
- Must the Government avoid involvement with religion as a whole, or is the prohibition just on Government involvement with a specific religion?
- Is there a difference between religious expression in Government buildings, documents, and institutions and Government spending on private, faith-based initiatives?
- What do you see as the Constitutionally protected or limited role of faith-based groups in Government-funded activity? In Government institutions?
Specifically:
- In the two cases the Supreme Court decided on the Ten Commandments recently, a display of the Commandments inside a Courthouse was found unconstitutional, while a statue of the Commandments on the grounds of a state capitol was deemed acceptable. Do you agree with the distinction the Court drew between Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary Country v. ACLU (2005)? In your view, are these decisions consistent with each other?
- What is your view of the Supreme Court's opinion in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000), which held that prayer in public schools is prohibited even where it is student-organized, non-denominational, and at a football game?
- Do you agree that states can regulate activities at religious ceremonies, as the Supreme Court held in allowing Oregon to prohibit the use of peyote for Native American tribal ceremonies in Employment Division v. Smith (1990)?

3. Commerce Clause:
Beginning in 1937, when it upheld the National Labor Relations Act, the Supreme Court has granted Congress great latitude in passing laws under the Commerce Clause. The Court has upheld a wide range of federal laws, including those that regulate labor standards, personal consumption of produce, racial discrimination in public accommodations, and crime. In the last ten years, however, the Supreme Court has shifted course, doing something it had not done in sixty years: striking down acts of Congress on Commerce Clause grounds.
- Do you think the trend towards striking down laws on this basis is desirable?
- What do you believe is the extent of Congress’s authority to legislate under the Commerce Clause?
- Can Congress regulate local trade in a product that is used nationally?
- Can Congress regulate labor standards for states and cities under its Commerce Clause power?
- How closely connected must the regulated action be to interstate commerce for Congress to have the authority to legislate?
- Where would you look for evidence that Congress is properly legislating under its Commerce Clause authority? Do you rely exclusively on the text of the legislation? Do you look at the legislative history? Do you consider the nature of the regulated activity?
- What is the extent of the limitations imposed on state regulation by the Commerce Clause?
Specifically:
- Do you agree that it is the Commerce Clause that allows Congress to prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations, as the Court held in Heart of Atlanta Hotel v. United States (1964)?
- Do you agree with the Court’s decision in United States v. Lopez (1995), which struck down the Gun-Free School Zone Act because education is traditionally local? Is there any circumstance under which Congress could regulate activities in schools using its Commerce Clause authority?

4. Under what circumstances is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to overturn a well-settled precedent, upon which Americans have come to rely?
- Does your answer depend at all on the length of time that the precedent has been on the books?
- Does your answer depend at all on how widely criticized or accepted the precedent is?
- What if you agree with the result but believe the legal reasoning was seriously flawed? Does that make a difference?
- Does it matter if the precedent was 5-4 in deciding whether to overturn it? Does it matter if was a unanimous decision?
Specifically:
- Do you agree with the 1976 decision in which the Supreme Court held that Congress could not extend the Fair Labor Standards Act to state and city employees (National League of Cities v. Usery), or do you agree with the later 1985 decision, which held that Congress could (Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit, overruling Nat’l League of Cities). Was the Court right to overturn its precedent nine years later? Why or why not?
- Do you agree with the 1989 decision in which the Supreme Court held that it was constitutional to execute minors (Stanford v. Kentucky), or do you agree with the later 2005 decision, which held that it was unconstitutional (Roper v. Simmons). Was the Court right to overturn its precedent 16 years later? Why or why not?
- Do you agree with the 1986 decision in which the Supreme Court held that states could criminalize private sex acts between consenting adults (Bowers v. Hardwick), or do you agree with the later 2003 decision, which held that the states could not (Lawrence v. Texas)? Was the Court right to overturn its precedent 17 years later? Why or why not?

5. Under what circumstances should the Supreme Court invalidate a law duly passed by the Congress?
- What amount of deference should the court give to Congressional action?
- Should the Court err on the side of upholding a law?
- Do certain types of laws deserve greater deference than others? Regulatory laws? Criminal laws?
- How closely tied must a law be to an enumerated right of Congress under Article I for it to be upheld?
Let me ask you about a few cases in which the Supreme Court has struck down federal laws:
- Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Gun-Free School Zones Act at issue in United States v. Lopez (1995)? Why or why not?
- Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down provisions of the Violence Against Women Act in United States v. Morrison (2000)? Why or why not?

6. Is there a constitutionally protected right to privacy, and if so, under what circumstances does it apply?
- The word “privacy” is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. In your view, does that mean it is wrong for the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution as conferring such a right?
- Do you believe that either the United States Congress or the states can regulate the sexual behavior of individuals within the privacy of their home?
- Do you agree with the reasoning in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which held that the Constitution protects the right to privacy in the bedroom?
- Do you believe that Roe v. Wade (1973) was correctly decided? What is your view of the quality of the legal reasoning in that case? Do you believe that it reached the right result?
- Once the right to privacy has been found – as in Griswold and Roe – under what circumstances should the Supreme Court revisit that right?

7. What is the proper role of the federal government in enacting laws to protect the environment?
- Under the Constitution, how far can Congress go in imposing restrictions on people and businesses to protect the air and water?
- How should Congress balance the interests of industry against environmental interests?
- How far can the states go in enacting laws to protect the environment, and does it matter whether there is federal legislation on the same subject?
- Let me put this in the context of a specific case: Do you believe that the Supreme Court correctly decided that the EPA has the authority to pursue industrial polluters in a state where the local authority has declined to do so, as in Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA (2004)?
- Can the Clean Air Act preempt local emissions regulations, as the Court held in Engine Manufacturers Association v. South Coast Air Quality Management (2004)?

8. What is the proper role of the federal government in enacting laws to protect the rights of the disabled?
- How should Congress balance the costs to business against the government’s interest in creating equal access to facilities for disabled persons?
- Should federal laws mandating access to buildings for disabled people apply to both public and private buildings?
- For example, do you believe that the Americans with Disabilities Act requires state buildings to be accessible to the disabled, as the Supreme Court held in Tennessee v. Lane, or do you think that sovereign immunity exempts the states?

9. What is the proper relationship between Congress and the states in enacting laws to protect the rights of patients?
- For example, do you believe federal legislation can preempt state court laws that allow people to sue negligent insurers, as the Supreme Court held in Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila (2004)?

10. What is the proper Constitutional role of Government in enacting laws to regulate education?
- How far can the Government go under the Constitution to ensure equal treatment for all students?
- How far can the Court go to protect speech and/or prohibit violations of the establishment clause in the schools? For example, do you believe that Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000) was decided correctly?
- Does the Constitution guarantee parents the right to choose their children’s education, as established in Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) and Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)?

11. How do you define judicial activism? Give us three examples of Supreme Court cases that you consider the product of judicial activism.
- Is the “activist” label limited to more liberal-leaning judges, or can there be conservative activist judges? Can you cite any examples of conservative judicial activism?
- In cases where federal law and state law may be in conflict, who is the activist – the judge who voted to strike down the federal law or the judge who invalidated the state law?
- Do you believe that the Supreme Court was engaging in judicial activism when it struck down provisions of the Gun-Free School Zones Act (United States v. Lopez) or the Violence Against Women Act (United States v. Morrison), both of which had been passed by Congress?
- Was the Supreme Court engaging in judicial activism in:
Brown v. Board of Education?
Miranda v. Arizona?
Dred Scott v. Sandford?
The Civil Rights Cases of 1883?
Lochner v. New York?
Furman v. Georgia?
Bush v. Gore?
- What distinguishes one case from the other?

12. Do you describe yourself as falling into any particular school of judicial philosophy?
- What is your view of “strict constructionism”?
- What is your view of the notion of “original intent”? “Original meaning”?
- How do you square the notion of respecting “original intent” with the acceptance of the institution of slavery at the time the Constitution was adopted?

13. What in your view are the limits on the scope of Congress' power under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th Amendment?
- Does a law violate the Equal Protection Clause if it affects different groups differently, or must there be a discriminatory intent?
- Do parents have a Due Process right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children, as the Supreme Court held in Troxel v. Granville (2000)?

14. Where is the line between civil rights questions that are political and questions that are appropriate for a court to decide?
- Do you agree with the reasoning in Powell v. McCormack? Why or why not?
- Do you agree with the reasoning in Baker v. Carr? Why or why not?
- Do you agree with the reasoning in Bush v. Gore? Why or why not?
What power does the Supreme Court have to intervene in state election laws (as in Bush v. Gore)?
- What role should the Supreme Court be playing in disputed elections?

15. Which Supreme Court Justice do you believe your jurisprudence most closely resembles and why?

16. When the Supreme Court issues non-unanimous opinions, Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg frequently find themselves in disagreement with each other. Do you more frequently agree with Justice Scalia's opinions, or Justice Ginsburg's?

17. Can you identify three Supreme Court cases that have not been reversed where you are critical of the Court's holding or reasoning and discuss the reasons for your criticism?

[Edited on 7-20-2005 by Ganalon]

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
I believe I read that he had said that Roe should be overturned but he wasn't ready to mess with the precedent of it.

That makes me nervous. That is like saying, "I want to screw all of NY city, but I don't quite have enough condoms YET."

-M

It's my understanding he said that in a response either while AS an appeals court judge, or while becoming approved to BE an appeals court judge.

Of course they have to follow precedent.

The supreme court is a whole different ballgame though.

We will see much much more from this line of questioning delved into though as the confirmation hearings proceed I am sure.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by xtc
I was waiting for someone to post the first amendment. No one is trying to establish a religion so it doesn't apply.

When you use your faith based values to make laws and pass judgments, you are indeed using your position to establish a safe haven for your chosen theological beliefs.

Until the day arrives when 100% of these united states agree upon and follow one faith, using a political office as your secondary pulpit is a no no.

Unfortunately there's too much back scratching and ass watching going on to put a stop to it.

[Artha]

You have to use -something- to justify what right and wrong are. Considering that the vast majority of this country is judeo-christian, and this is a democratic country, these values seem like as good a guide as any.

[Tsa`ah]

Except that the "right and wrong" are often twisted to fit personal hypocracy. Stem cell research being the first example that pops up in my mind.

Using theology based values objectively in decision making isn't a bad thing, so long as it is objective and not subjective. When those values are used subjectively, one tends to tread on the rights of those that don't hold the same value set.

[Artha]

Right and wrong are more or less entirely subjective, though. They're constructs of society to help it function more smoothly. Personally, I think it's hard (if possible at all) to be objective with them.

[Tsa`ah]

Eh, I disagree.

Infringing upon another person's rights is wrong. This has nothing to do with religion and is at the very heart of our constitution.

Murder is wrong ... not subjective.
Stealing is wrong, ... not subjective.
Abuse of children is wrong ... not subjective.

We could go on for hours on all things that are wrong and find the list is loaded with things not subjective at all.

Now, when we start treading on issues of abortion, genetic research, and a myriad of other things and in the process label them as right or wrong based upon our theological (or lack there of) values ... it becomes very subjective.

[Latrinsorm]

Just because something is written in the Constitution doesn't mean it isn't subjective. What possible justification do you have for that that simultaneously excludes religious morality?

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
[quote]Originally posted by xtc
I was waiting for someone to post the first amendment. No one is trying to establish a religion so it doesn't apply.

Perhaps what you say in your first paragraph is true. However the First Amendment doesn't prohibit this. Elected officials are supposed to represent their constituents beliefs, obviously religion will be a defining factor in forming those beliefs.

I think calling it a pulpit is a bit much personally. If you represent your constituent’s beliefs then you are doing your job. The day will never come in America that it will have one theistic belief.

In America the Supreme Court decides matters that in other countries the Parliament decides like abortion.

I personally am Pro Life and I am not a religious person. The respect for life is something that you will find among Jews, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Shintoists, Taoists, Agnostics and Atheists and many others.

[Warriorbird]

Yes. We obviously should have a theocracy. That's clearly what they wanted. You should impose your religious beliefs on everyone... especially the people who didn't vote for you.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Yes. We obviously should have a theocracy. That's clearly what they wanted. You should impose your religious beliefs on everyone... especially the people who didn't vote for you.

Huh?

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by xtc
Perhaps what you say in your first paragraph is true. However the First Amendment doesn't prohibit this. Elected officials are supposed to represent their constituents beliefs, obviously religion will be a defining factor in forming those beliefs.

When you define yourself through a theological mindset as an elected official, you are in turn giving shelter to your religion.


I think calling it a pulpit is a bit much personally.

I thought it rather reserved.


If you represent your constituent’s beliefs then you are doing your job. The day will never come in America that it will have one theistic belief.

And that is the problem. When your constituents are treading on another group's rights, then you are no longer doing your job. Rather acting as the hand of group.


In America the Supreme Court decides matters that in other countries the Parliament decides like abortion.

I personally am Pro Life and I am not a religious person. The respect for life is something that you will find among Jews, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Shintoists, Taoists, Agnostics and Atheists and many others.

And the perfect example making subjective decisions based on theological based stances.

[Warriorbird]

"Huh?"

You can read it through a couple more times and maybe you'll get it. It was more directed at Artha, however.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
"Huh?"

You can read it through a couple more times and maybe you'll get it. It was more directed at Artha, however.

I understood the content just not who it was directed to. Your post was directly under mine and I couldn't see how your post was a response to mine.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
When you define yourself through a theological mindset as an elected official, you are in turn giving shelter to your religion.

I was referring to the constituents, not the elected officials. However elected officials who are religious have as much right to vote their views, as do secular members of Congress.


And that is the problem. When your constituents are treading on another group's rights, then you are no longer doing your job. Rather acting as the hand of group.

And that is politics, the majority rules. When secularism took away prayer in schools, they tread on the rights of religious people to pray in their schools.


In America the Supreme Court decides matters that in other countries the Parliament decides like abortion.

I personally am Pro Life and I am not a religious person. The respect for life is something that you will find among Jews, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Shintoists, Taoists, Agnostics and Atheists and many others.

And the perfect example making subjective decisions based on theological based stances. [/quote]

The point was the respect for life isn't isolated to Southern Baptists. With the majority of people on earth at least nominally a member of some religion, it will influence people's beliefs, which will influence politics.

I hope you noticed I included atheists and agnostics in my list. If the Democrats are able to label any one political stance as "religious" it gives them a lot of ammunition for the fight. However that label isn't always correct.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by xtc
And that is politics, the majority rules. When secularism took away prayer in schools, they tread on the rights of religious people to pray in their schools.


Oh so very, very wrong. Anyone can still pray in school if they want to. Sitting in class, in between class, walking in the halls, sitting on the toilet in the bathroom, whenever their little hearts desire. What was taken away was organized prayer that obligated everyone to join in or stand out by their refusal to do so. What was removed was the expectation that everyone should pray thus forcing kids to say 'no' if they chose to. Want to pray in school? Go right ahead.

Raven

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by xtc
And that is politics, the majority rules. When secularism took away prayer in schools, they tread on the rights of religious people to pray in their schools.


Oh so very, very wrong. Anyone can still pray in school if they want to. Sitting in class, in between class, walking in the halls, sitting on the toilet in the bathroom, whenever their little hearts desire. What was taken away was organized prayer that obligated everyone to join in or stand out by their refusal to do so. What was removed was the expectation that everyone should pray thus forcing kids to say 'no' if they chose to. Want to pray in school? Go right ahead.

Raven

I don't believe you are aloud to prayer out loud in schools.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by xtc
I don't believe you are aloud to prayer out loud in schools.

God is hard of hearing now?

Raven

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
What was taken away was organized prayer that obligated everyone to join in or stand out by their refusal to do so.An atheist can't possibly stand out by not saying the Our Father any more than a Muslim praying towards Mecca would. You're welcome to state that a school should not endorse a religion, but this "standing out" business isn't going to fly.

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by Latrinsorm]

[Warriorbird]

Really.

How about Virginia's little school prayer initiative only allowing "silent prayer"? I'm curious how that isn't discriminatory.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by xtc
I don't believe you are aloud to prayer out loud in schools.

God is hard of hearing now?

Raven

Praying out loud is for the person praying not God.

[Warriorbird]

"An atheist can't possibly stand out by not saying the Our Father any more than a Muslim praying towards Mecca would. "

Bullshit. My sister got very vigourously singled out. That's why she took part in the court case.

Later on she got death threats and accused of being a Satanist.

Lovely people, "Christians."

[Gan]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Lovely people, "Christians."

Nice blanket statement. :clap:

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by Ganalon]

[Terminator X]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163039,00.html

I just highlighted the reason why that is, in fact, most certainly NOT a valid news source.

Also, do you realize that the person in question from your so-called "Article," is probably one of the least worthy individuals to be viable in the art of original intent analysis?

Just making sure.

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by Terminator X]

[Gan]

Originally posted by Terminator X
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163039,00.html

I just highlighted the reason why that is, in fact, most certainly NOT a valid news source.

Also, do you realize that the person in question from your so-called "Article," is probably one of the least worthy individuals to be viable in the art of original intent analysis?

Just making sure.

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by Terminator X]


Would help if the link worked. You might try the link without the bold tags... :whistle:

[Terminator X]

I'm trying to help people read posts from the beginning to the end.

You should thank me :smug:

[Gan]

:lol:

Try copy/paste the article. It works better. Thanks for the heads up though. I'll work through the bad link and get to the article just to see what you're talking about.

[Gan]

Well. since its an article I've already posted I wont have to worry about fixing it.

As to Foxnews being newsworthy. Well, its not the highest on my list of integral news sources; however, the article is pretty non-partisan and non-inflammatory and all's it talks about is the questions that a Democratic Senator wants to ask Roberts.

I dont understand where you're getting your impression of it being not news worthy.

Thanks for participating though.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
How about Virginia's little school prayer initiative only allowing "silent prayer"? I'm curious how that isn't discriminatory.There's a line where the classroom can't be disturbed because someone feels like reciting the Psalter w/ harp and tambourine. You say discriminatory, I say conducive to learning.
Bullshit. My sister got very vigourously singled out.How many Muslims practiced in her class?

"Christians" are sucky though. Make the Christians look bad to those who are unable to see that a group isn't just its worst representatives.

[Back]

Originally posted by Terminator X
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163039,00.html

I just highlighted the reason why that is, in fact, most certainly NOT a valid news source.

Also, do you realize that the person in question from your so-called "Article," is probably one of the least worthy individuals to be viable in the art of original intent analysis?

Just making sure.

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by Terminator X]

You think Fox is bad? Check out what Ann Coulter has to say about it (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20050721.shtml).


The only way a Supreme Court nominee could win the approval of NARAL and Planned Parenthood would be to actually perform an abortion during his confirmation hearing, live, on camera, and preferably a partial birth one.

[Edited on 7-22-2005 by Backlash]

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon
:lol:

Try copy/paste the article. It works better. Thanks for the heads up though. I'll work through the bad link and get to the article just to see what you're talking about.

:lol:

Try and copy/paste the link in your browser. Lazy bastard.

[Hulkein]

OMFG FOXNEWZ IS NOT LEGIT

[Back]

Originally posted by Hulkein
OMFG FOXNEWZ IS NOT LEGIT

Way to represent, Hulk! Go man go!

[Warriorbird]

"How many Muslims practiced in her class? "

None. Two in her grade though.

[Warriorbird]

"Make the Christians look bad to those who are unable to see that a group isn't just its worst representatives"

Well... Christians without any quotes legislated the prayer. That's pretty bad.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Ganalon
:lol:

Try copy/paste the article. It works better. Thanks for the heads up though. I'll work through the bad link and get to the article just to see what you're talking about.

:lol:

Try and copy/paste the link in your browser. Lazy bastard.

:?:

[Rainy Day]

Originally posted by xtc

And that is politics, the majority rules. When secularism took away prayer in schools, they tread on the rights of religious people to pray in their schools.

This is and always has been horseshit. The only thing prohibited is organized prayer. Nothing stops a student from saying a silent prayer any time they want. A truely religious person knows that, and doesn't need all the show.

RD

[Terminator X]

^
What religion are you?

[Ravenstorm]

How amusing.

Just a few days ago, conservatives were all over Democrats and liberals about their concerns about Roberts. Just because he worked as a lawyer on anti-abortion cases doesn't mean he's anti-abortion they argue. (All the while they're chuckling into their goatees over it.)

And yet now, when it turns out he's worked - successfully - on a gay rights case, they have 'concerns' about him being a 'liberal in conservative clothing'.

Hypocrites.

Raven

[Latrinsorm]

Yep, sure enough. Hopefully people will stop saying Bush is anti-gay now, though, considering it was him who nominated this Roberts fella.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Yep, sure enough. Hopefully people will stop saying Bush is anti-gay now, though, considering it was him who nominated this Roberts fella.

Call me old fashioned, but when a person advocates, from a very powerful political position, discrimination against an entire group of people (homosexuals in this case), I'm going to continue to say they are not in favour of that group.

Gays and lesbians are people and should be permitted to partake of the enjoyable ceremony of marrige if their own places of worship condone that. Bush's stance on the matter shouldn't matter IMO, but his administration has often labelled judges in favor of gay marriage as "activist judges" and often sought to "protect the sanctity of marriage".

So please don't try to spin Bush as being sympathetic to alternative sexualities.

-M

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Gays and lesbians are people and should be permitted to partake of the enjoyable ceremony of marrige if their own places of worship condone that. Bush's stance on the matter shouldn't matter IMO, but his administration has often labelled judges in favor of gay marriage as "activist judges" and often sought to "protect the sanctity of marriage". All Bush suggested was let the common people decide things, not the judges. That's how an Amendment works. To continue this little spin through off-topic land for a moment, I personally think they're going about this whole thing bass-ackwards and Bush very well could subscribe to the views you describe, but baseless allegations don't help anyone.

[Messiah]

People Who Prefer The Same Sex Are Still Living And Breathing People. You Cant Argue Against That.

[Warriorbird]

Bush supports gay and lesbian people just like Jack Chick does.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Bush supports gay and lesbian people just like Jack Chick does.

Gods, I love his pamphlets. They're so, so funny in all the wrong ways.

Raven

[Gan]

Vote going on now...

FINAL 78 yes: 22 no

looks like he will be confirmed

edit:

Seems Kerry was not present to vote... anyone know why?

Well, 100 votes counted, perhaps he wasnt at his desk when his name was called so they recalled it.

[Edited on 9-29-2005 by Ganalon]

[Edited on 9-29-2005 by Ganalon]

[Warriorbird]

Yeah... about the only chance he wouldn't be is if he'd done something really terrible.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Vote going on now...

so far 30 yes: 8 no

looks like he will be confirmed

edit:

Seems Kerry was not present to vote... anyone know why?

[Edited on 9-29-2005 by Ganalon]

Botox injections appointment

[Back]

Confirmed.

Not much of a battle.

[Hulkein]

Good choice, W.

[xtc]

I predict that whoever is nominated to replace Sandra Day O'Connor will have a much tougher time getting confirmed.