The Religious Right and Contemporary American Politics

mysteryman wrote:

There have NEVER been any Senate rules that allow filibustering of judicial nominees.

That's not quite true. Until recently the Senate had by long-establish prectice, never fillibustered to prevent a vote on a judicial nominee, though the rules, strictly speaking, did not forbid it. The prevailing view was that the Senate had a constitutional DUTY to vote on Presidential appointments in accordance with the Advise and Consent provision of the constitution. This duty was not subject to the maneuverings that often accompany other Senatorial enactments.

Now Senate Democrats have broken this long-established practice, based on the principle of Constitutional duty, and the Republicans are faced with figuring out what to do about it. One way is to ament the cloture rules to prevent a fillibuster by majority vote. This is something the Senate can readily do - no constitutional issue is involved. Republicans would merely be countering one change in Senatorial practice with another.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

I dont see my post as highlighting any resentment among fundamentalists of other fundamentalists or the government in any way, actually. I mean, I don't get where you take that from.

I think she is taking it from the general dynamics of this thread, which mostly revolved around Lola's assumption that the religious right is a threat that ought to be faught. These dynamics were disrupted when you suggested that there is room for cooperation between the religious right and the religious left, and that something good might eventually come from such a cooperation. Your suggestion makes sense to me (assuming I understood it correctly), and it's just a matter of time until your message will sink in.

0 Replies

In some quarters here I believe that will require more time that our solar system has remaining.

0 Replies

georgeob1,
When you said..."The prevailing view was that the Senate had a constitutional DUTY to vote on Presidential appointments in accordance with the Advise and Consent provision of the constitution."

That isnt quite true either.
NOWHERE in the Constitution does it say the Senate has to vote on Presidential appointments.
It does say that they must "advise and consent".

That means that a letter signed by 51 Senators would qualify as "advise and consent" to a Presidential appt.
There is no constitutionally defined way that the advise and consent,only that they must do that.

0 Replies

Wat I said was the prevailing view (in the Senate) was that they had a duty to act on nominations by some means that involved the Senate as a whole in their advise and consent role.

The new twist introduced by the Democrat - something never done until recently- is to filibuster to prevent a vote on the Senate floor at all. A two-thirds majority is required to invoke cloture and stop a filibuster, and, lacking a two-thirds majority, the Republicans cannot bring their judicial nominations to the Senate floor at all. Again the past practice in the Senate was based on the prevailing belief that their duty to advise and consent required a floor vote of the entire Senate and the ensuing majority rule. Now, with Democrats filibustering and prohibiting a floor vote, they have, in effect, imposed a two-thirds requirement on Senate consent - something not foreseen in the Constitution.

0 Replies

True, but as I heard Bob Dole say on TV last night, 'if you can't get the senate to agree enough to even consider things, it's a sign of a serious problem; and invoking the 'nuclear option' should be seen as the LAST POSSIBLE RESORT.' (empahsis his)

To which I agree with. Given that the VAST majority of the judges have been confirmed, and FAR more have been confirmed already than were during Clinton's era (in which the Republican congress denied 60+ judges), this whole issue could be solved if the Republicans would just... drop their insistance that ten of the worst rated, out of over 200, get approved.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

True, but as I heard Bob Dole say on TV last night, 'if you can't get the senate to agree enough to even consider things, it's a sign of a serious problem; and invoking the 'nuclear option' should be seen as the LAST POSSIBLE RESORT.' (empahsis his)

To which I agree with. Given that the VAST majority of the judges have been confirmed, and FAR more have been confirmed already than were during Clinton's era (in which the Republican congress denied 60+ judges), this whole issue could be solved if the Republicans would just... drop their insistance that ten of the worst rated, out of over 200, get approved.

Cycloptichorn

Worst rated by who?
Just because you dont like someone does not mean that they are not qualified to sit on the bench.

I will say that I do find it interesting that a large percentage of the judges being blocked by the dems are minorities.
To me,that says much about what the dems really think about minorities.

0 Replies

Quote:

Worst rated by who?
Just because you dont like someone does not mean that they are not qualified to sit on the bench.

By fellow judges, by their peers, by the fact that their opinions are consistently turned over by higher courts.

Quote:

I will say that I do find it interesting that a large percentage of the judges being blocked by the dems are minorities.
To me,that says much about what the dems really think about minorities.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

The new twist introduced by the Democrat - something never done until recently- is to filibuster to prevent a vote on the Senate floor at all.

Not true. Filibusters have been used in the past -- by both parties -- to block judicial nominees. Republicans, aided by conservative southern Democrats, filibustered the nomination of Abe Fortas for the position of chief justice of the supreme court in 1968, a fact pointed out recently by the Washington Post (registration required):

Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) told his panel this month that the judicial battles have escalated, "with the filibuster being employed for the first time in the history of the Republic." Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said in a Senate speech last week, "The crisis created by the unprecedented use of filibusters to defeat judicial nominations must be solved." Such claims, however, are at odds with the record of the successful 1968 GOP-led filibuster against President Lyndon B. Johnson's nomination of Abe Fortas to be chief justice of the United States. "Fortas Debate Opens with a Filibuster," a Page One Washington Post story declared on Sept. 26, 1968. It said, "A full-dress Republican-led filibuster broke out in the Senate yesterday against a motion to call up the nomination of Justice Abe Fortas for Chief Justice." In a weird riposte to Democrats, the Wall Street Journal said that the current use of the filibuster was unprecedented, and then admitted that the GOP-led effort to block the Fortas nomination was a filibuster. Presumably, although the Fortas nomination was filibustered, it was (in the eyes of the WSJ) a good filibuster, and thus readily distinguishable from the bad filibusters practiced by today's Democrats.

georgeob1 wrote:

A two-thirds majority is required to invoke cloture and stop a filibuster, and, lacking a two-thirds majority, the Republicans cannot bring their judicial nominations to the Senate floor at all.

Wrong again. The senate rules require a three-fifths majority to invoke cloture.

georgeob1 wrote:

Again the past practice in the Senate was based on the prevailing belief that their duty to advise and consent required a floor vote of the entire Senate and the ensuing majority rule. Now, with Democrats filibustering and prohibiting a floor vote, they have, in effect, imposed a two-thirds requirement on Senate consent - something not foreseen in the Constitution.

The Republicans have certainly become recent converts to the church of the holy filibuster-buster.

According to the Congressional Research Service, cloture motions were filed and cloture votes held on 14 appeals court nominations from 1980 to 2000. As recently as 2000, cloture votes were necessary to obtain votes on the nominations of both Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon to the Ninth Circuit. Current Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist was among those voting against cloture on the Paez nomination. Democrats have also demanded 60 votes for controversial nominees, such as Edward Carnes, who was nominated to the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in 1992.Source. Furthermore, the Republicans who are currently bemoaning the undemocratic nature of having a two-fifths minority blocking judicial nominations were strangely reticent about the senate's "blue slip" procedures during the Clinton era, whereby a single senator could block a judicial nomination (and GOP senators did it sixty times).

0 Replies

Good points,. and thanks for correcting my 6&% vs. 60% error for cloture.

However I do believe the Abe Fortas nomination, clouded as it was by past misdeeds and collusion with Johnson, should not be considered a "normal" case.

0 Replies

joefromchicago,
I think the difference is that the repubs actually DID filibuster.They got up and talked and talked till the nomination was dead.
The dems are just threatening to do it.
Personally,I think the repubs should call there bluff.
Make the dems stand up and start talking.Dont let them leave the floor at all,and the minute they do the filibuster is over and the vote is held.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Lola wrote:
I agree nimh and I'm looking for every opportunity to make this happen. There is disagreement among the fundies. [..] as the pre-mil or the post mil (that's millenium) before of after the 1,000 years of the tribulation. There are many fundies who are upset about the Republicans "using the faithful." My sister is all worked up about it. And she's as fundamentalist as they come.

That's why exposure of the New Right campaign will only help.

I dont see my post as highlighting any resentment among fundamentalists of other fundamentalists or the government in any way, actually. I mean, I don't get where you take that from. OK, there was the thing about 26 Republicans crossing over for the vote, true. But I didnt see that described anywhere as an anti-leadership move or anti-Bush vote - hell, Bush wasnt even President yet. In fact, Bush's own current line on debt relief seems to be being influenced quite positively by these groups.

I just see some folks standing up for what they believe in - and it turns out that their "religious right" values happen, on this subject, to align with those of the liberals. It would probably be easier to form such strategic alliances on individual topics more often if every time "they" happen to agree with us wasnt primarily used/paraded as the sign of impending doom for George Bush. Thats not generally how you get an Alabaman Republican on board for this or that cause.

Many of the religious right are not fundamentalists. But even among fundamentalists there are those who value feeding the poor. I know a lot of them since I worked with them for a long time. But my point is that these fundamentalists are not fanatical control freak fundamentalists. And many of the religious right are actually liberal compared to the fanatics. It's the fanatics who are organized and not only don't give one whit about the poor, they are, in fact prejudiced against them. They believe they should pull themselves up by their boot straps. And it is these folks that need to know what the nuts are up to.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

nimh wrote:
I dont see my post as highlighting any resentment among fundamentalists of other fundamentalists or the government in any way, actually. I mean, I don't get where you take that from.

I think she is taking it from the general dynamics of this thread, which mostly revolved around Lola's assumption that the religious right is a threat that ought to be faught. These dynamics were disrupted when you suggested that there is room for cooperation between the religious right and the religious left, and that something good might eventually come from such a cooperation. Your suggestion makes sense to me (assuming I understood it correctly), and it's just a matter of time until your message will sink in.

No Thomas, your read is wrong here. I'm saying that exposure of those who are dangerous will help religious people from the left and the right mobilize to contain the danger for the poor. That's all. I'm not sure why you and nimh don't understand my point. Maybe I'm just in a hurry and not explaining myself very well. For instance, I have to go to bed now. Good night all.

0 Replies

Cyclo.says that the judges were voted the worst judges by their fellow judges,by their peers and the fact that their opinions are consistently turned over by the higher courts>

I can find no evidence that the statement above as written by Cyclo is true--

"consistenly turned over"??? by the higher courts??

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Many of the religious right are not fundamentalists. But even among fundamentalists there are those who value feeding the poor. I know a lot of them since I worked with them for a long time. But my point is that these fundamentalists are not fanatical control freak fundamentalists. And many of the religious right are actually liberal compared to the fanatics. It's the fanatics who are organized and not only don't give one whit about the poor, they are, in fact prejudiced against them. They believe they should pull themselves up by their boot straps. And it is these folks that need to know what the nuts are up to.

I think the distinction you are trying to make is getting very tenuous. Among the Religious Right, there are those who care for the poor and want to feed them, and those who believe they should pull themselves up by the bootstraps and preach tough love. Check. We know which ones we agree with - which ones the Left could work together with if the issue comes up. OK. So we have established that the Religious Right is diverse and parts of it can be worked with. Same with fundamentalists. So now you are arguing that the evil group we should fear and oppose relentlessly can be distinguished from those who actually care about the poor because they are "the fanatics who are organized". Those are the "fanatical control freak fundamentalists", and its the fact that they're so organised that makes them dangerous. But it looks to me from the info I posted about the Jubilee Act efforts, for example, that the feed-the-poor fundamentalists are pretty darn well organized as well. Plus, more relevantly, they're often the same persons. They were supported by Billy Graham, for one. By hardline Religious Right Congressmen from Alabama and Virginia.

I would propose that trying to distinguish the "good ones" from the "bad ones" as supposedly two distinct groups - one of which should then still be opposed, isolated and been wary of at all times, is untenable. Looks like the fact of the matter is this: the Religious Right believes the opposite of what we believe when it comes to abortion, gay rights and plenty of other causes like that. Those "nice" feed-the-poor fundamentalists do so no less than the up-by-your-bootstraps ones. But on other issues - poverty, development aid - many of those same people can apparently be talked with. Its a mixed bag, but not because there's some evil masterminds among them that the gullible good ones need to be warned about - but simply because all of them will disagree with you on most things, but agree with you on some things.

0 Replies

Chic:

No time to type, but different objections for different judges out of the ten that I've heard in the past few weeks.

I'll try to find more info later today k?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

joefromchicago,
I think the difference is that the repubs actually DID filibuster.They got up and talked and talked till the nomination was dead.

I doubt that's the distinction that C. Boyden Gray was talking about in his WSJ piece. The rules regarding filibusters have changed since 1968; both sides essentially recognized that there was no need for one side to stage a filibuster if the other side didn't have enough votes for a cloture motion. If, on the other hand, a single senator wanted to stage a filibuster (in the manner of Jimmy Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"), then I suppose he'd still have to hold the floor and talk until he dropped.

mysteryman wrote:

The dems are just threatening to do it.
Personally,I think the repubs should call there bluff.
Make the dems stand up and start talking.Dont let them leave the floor at all,and the minute they do the filibuster is over and the vote is held.

The filibuster will never be over because the Republicans don't have enough votes for cloture. That's why they're contemplating resort to the "nuclear option."

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Lola wrote:
Many of the religious right are not fundamentalists. But even among fundamentalists there are those who value feeding the poor. I know a lot of them since I worked with them for a long time. But my point is that these fundamentalists are not fanatical control freak fundamentalists. And many of the religious right are actually liberal compared to the fanatics. It's the fanatics who are organized and not only don't give one whit about the poor, they are, in fact prejudiced against them. They believe they should pull themselves up by their boot straps. And it is these folks that need to know what the nuts are up to.

I think the distinction you are trying to make is getting very tenuous. Among the Religious Right, there are those who care for the poor and want to feed them, and those who believe they should pull themselves up by the bootstraps and preach tough love. Check. We know which ones we agree with - which ones the Left could work together with if the issue comes up. OK. So we have established that the Religious Right is diverse and parts of it can be worked with. Same with fundamentalists. So now you are arguing that the evil group we should fear and oppose relentlessly can be distinguished from those who actually care about the poor because they are "the fanatics who are organized". Those are the "fanatical control freak fundamentalists", and its the fact that they're so organised that makes them dangerous. But it looks to me from the info I posted about the Jubilee Act efforts, for example, that the feed-the-poor fundamentalists are pretty darn well organized as well. Plus, more relevantly, they're often the same persons. They were supported by Billy Graham, for one. By hardline Religious Right Congressmen from Alabama and Virginia.

I would propose that trying to distinguish the "good ones" from the "bad ones" as supposedly two distinct groups - one of which should then still be opposed, isolated and been wary of at all times, is untenable. Looks like the fact of the matter is this: the Religious Right believes the opposite of what we believe when it comes to abortion, gay rights and plenty of other causes like that. Those "nice" feed-the-poor fundamentalists do so no less than the up-by-your-bootstraps ones. But on other issues - poverty, development aid - many of those same people can apparently be talked with. Its a mixed bag, but not because there's some evil masterminds among them that the gullible good ones need to be warned about - but simply because all of them will disagree with you on most things, but agree with you on some things.

Of course Billy Graham is with the feed the poor crowd, he has no representatives on the Council for National Policy either. And of course there's over lap. Relief missions have been the work of Christians for many years. Direct mail fund raising has made millions on raising funds for those missions (not a bad thing in my mind). And many of these missions are run by fundamentalists. However, I find, among those I know personally who are involved in the CNP (Council on National Policy) -- and I know many of them -- the politically motivated fundamentalists are not the same fundamentalists/religious activists that spend most of their time being concerned about the poor and running organizations for hunger relief (I know lots of these folks too. Many of them are my friends.) But that is still not my point. Sorry I'm not being clear, but I have a lot of work to do besides a2k.

I think it would be excellent if we could find a way to appeal to those Christians out there who have traditional Christian values, like feeding the poor, rehabilitating the criminal, drug addicted, and the mentally incompetent, etc. And I think it's something that is being done.

But my point is this. If you think we'll be able to stop those fundamentalists who have been organized for thirty years in order to control our government by appealing to the need to feed the poor, you are indeed poorly informed and naive. My idea is to point to those forces that are active at this time that are threatening our democracy. If the good hearted Christians begin to see, as I believe they are beginning to do, that they are being manipulated and they are offered something they can be for, there is a good chance we'll make some good progress.

I am in absolute agreement with you that an important tactic now is to appeal to Christians who are not fanatics with a call for true Christian values. Because many of these are the very ones being manipulated by the fanatics (I use "fanatics" as short hand because I'm in a hurry.) Up to now the politically motivated fundamentalists have been doing an excellent job using good hearted Christians to further their cause. And I am delighted that, as Cyclo said on another thread, the pretty paint is beginning to peel off. You have acknowledged it yourself.

You shouldn't take my dedication for exposing this organized effort as an unwillingness to work in a positive vein. The battle has to be fought on both fronts. This is a culture war and we're in danger of losing it. This loss will set us back at least 50 years. All the progress we've made in the last half century (the expanse of lifetime so far of many of us) will be severely damaged.

As far as I know you and I are on the same side.

0 Replies

I know you've probably seen this, but just for the record of this thread:

http://www.stopactivistjudges.org/schedule.asp

Program for Confronting the Judicial War on Faith conference sponsored by the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Reformation.

April 7th -- Day 1
1:00pm -- Conference Opens - Introductory remarks Dr. Rick Scarborough (Vision America),Invocation by Rabbi Yehuda Levin (Jews for Morality), Pledge of Allegiance led by Dr. Sam Jihani
1:15pm - Congressman Lamar Smith will speak in place of Tom DeLay, who was called to Rome as part of the US delegation attending the Pope's funeral. Rep. DeLay expressed his "heartfelt regret at not being with the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration for this historic conference," and pledged to work with the Council to restore One Nation Under God.
2:00 - The Judicial Assault On Our Judeo-Christian Heritage (marriage, gay rights, The Ten Commandments, pornography, etc) - Mike Farris (Home School Legal Defense Assn.) , Bill Federer (AmeriSearch, Inc.), Don Feder (Vision America), Mark Sutherland (Joyce Meyer Ministries) -moderator.
3:00 - Abortion And Other Life Issues - Allan Parker (Texas Justice Foundation), Judge Darrell White (Retired Judges of America), Cathy Cleaver Ruse (Pro-Life Secretariat, US Catholic Bishops Conference), Michael Schwartz, Chief of Staff to Senator Tom Coburn, Austin Ruse (Culture of Life Foundation) -- moderator
4:15- Judicial Nominations - Tom Jipping (Office of Sen. Hatch), Gary Marx (Judicial Confirmation Network), Kay Daly (Coalition for a Fair Judiciary), Sam Casey (Christian Legal Society), Tom Smith (moderator)
5:15 - The Real Constitution - Rep. Todd Akin (author of The Pledge Protection Act), Herb Titus (former dean, Regent University Law School), Howard Phillips (Conservative Caucus), Jan LaRue (Concerned Women for America, Nate Kellum (Alliance Defense Fund) - moderator.
6:15 - Conference Recesses, Benediction by Rev. Earl Jackson
7:00 -- Banquet
Grace - Father Edward Hathaway, Keynote - David C. Gibbs, Esq. (Christian Law Association), attorney for Terri Schiavo's parents, introduced by Michael Peroutka (Institute on the Constitution), Brief remarks by Janet Folger.
April 8
8:30 am - Conference Resumes- An explanation of the day's program by Pastor Scarborough, Invocation by Alveda King, Pledge of Allegiance led by Judge Darrell White.
8:45 am - Evangelist Tim Lee (decorated Viet Nam combat veteran)
9:15 - Decline of Faith and What to do about it - Rev Earl Jackson, Patrick Reilly, (Cardinal Newman Society,) Rabbi Aryeh Spero (Caucus for America), Alveda King (King for America)moderator.
10:15 - Break
10:30 - Remedies to Judicial Tyranny -Phyllis Schlafly (Eagle Forum), former Congressman Bill Dannemeyer, Dr. Edwin Vieira (author, "How To De-throne The Imperial Judiciary"), Mike Farris, Richard Lessner (American Conservative Union) -- moderator.
11:30 - Break
11:45 - Lunch and speaker - Grace -- Christine Jihani, Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, Introduced by Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker.
1:45 -- Mobilizing The Grass-Roots - Morton Blackwell (The Leadership Institute), Kay Daly, Manny Miranda (Heritage Foundation), Tony Perkins (Family Research Council), William Greene (RightMarch.com)
2:45 - Break
3:00 - General Discussion of the Declaration of the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration (JCCCR)
4:45 pm Alan Keyes (Declaration Foundation), Introduced by Larry Cirignano (CatholicVote.org)
5:30 - Closing remarks and Benediction, Rev. Peter Marshall (Peter Marshall Ministries)
6:00 - Conference Adjourns
For More Information, Contact: Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration at 866-522-5582.
click name for bio)
Executive Committee:
Rev. Jerry Falwell
Michael Farris (Home School Legal Defense Association)
former Vatican Ambassador Ray Flynn
Alveda King (King for America)
Rabbi Daniel Lapin (Toward Tradition)
Ron Luce (Teen Mania)
Dave Meyer (Joyce Meyer Ministries)
Fr. Frank Pavone (Priests for Life)
Dr. Rick Scarborough (Vision America - Interim Chairman, Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration)
Phyllis Schlafly (Eagle Forum)
Thomas Smith (America 21)
Mike Valerio

and

http://www.nwanews.com/story.php?paper=adg&section=Editorial&storyid=113393

0 Replies

The Religious Right and Contemporary American Politics

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know