Frist Set to Use Religious Stage on Judicial Issue

I'll probably get slapped for this, and if so I'll take it like a woman, but...

Wouldn't one have expected the Christian Right to choose a kid for their promotional material that looks less gay and or Jewish?

Wouldn't one have expected a blond, blue eyed, milky skinned representative? And, I wonder if they recognize it or if it was on purpose to throw off the scent of it being right wing "Christian" programming.

(And a big shout out to kuvasz!)

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Unfortunately, we are getting exactly what we deserve.

We, the people, have allowed this kind of shyt to develop and to increase. We have voted this trash into office.

Franklin warned: You have a Republic...if you can keep it.

hi frank ! haven't talked that much with ya, but i always enjoy your no-nonsense approach. glad to see you're back.

and yes, we are reaping what we've been sewing over the last 20 (or 50 depending when you see it as really taking root) years.

even my wife, who told me i was worried about nothing over the last 2 decades, has come to the realization that these people are just plain nuts and are out to take over the country. even though the radical christian extremists are in the minority.

this is the united states of america. not the united states of jesus. if the christian extremists don't like it, they should leave.

0 Replies

Hey DTOM

Good to "see" you too.

The only comfort I get these days when thinking about this issue is that which comes from realizing that often groups, like the Christian right, set the stage for their own downfalls.

I surely hope that is what is happening.

But until that can work itself out...we are in for a lot of crapola.

They may be nuts....but even nuts can cause lots of carnage.

0 Replies

Don't act like these people are not being voted on because of their religion. We have people posting on this site against them because of their religion. It is happening and you know it, don't play dumb it doesn't suit you.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

Don't act like these people are not being voted on because of their religion. We have people posting on this site against them because of their religion. It is happening and you know it, don't play dumb it doesn't suit you.

I don't understand this post at all. And if you are going to direct comments to someone in particular, as you seem to be doing, it probably is a good idea to let people know who in the hell that person is.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
Don't act like these people are not being voted on because of their religion. We have people posting on this site against them because of their religion. It is happening and you know it, don't play dumb it doesn't suit you.

I don't understand this post at all. And if you are going to direct comments to someone in particular, as you seem to be doing, it probably is a good idea to let people know who in the hell that person is.

Feeling a little self consciouse there Frank?

I was talking in a generalization to the left on this thread. The major reason these people haven't been voted on is because of their religious views and the fear that they will bring those views into the court room, even though there is nothing to show that this has happened. It is a irrational fear of religion that the votes have not bee cast.

0 Replies

No, religion is irrational . . . fear of religion (organized religion and zealotry) represents the height of rationality . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

No, religion is irrational . . . fear of religion (organized religion and zealotry) represents the height of rationality . . .

I was right then, you do fear these people because of their releigion. It's good to know I'm right every now and then.

0 Replies

No Baldimo, you were not right--you rarely are. I do not fear the people, i fear the consequences of the injection of religious zealotry into the secular state, which is exactly what the religious right-wingnuts are attempting to accomplish . . .

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Don't act like these people are not being voted on because of their religion. We have people posting on this site against them because of their religion. quote]

I don't understand this post at all. And if you are going to direct comments to someone in particular, as you seem to be doing, it probably is a good idea to let people know who in the hell that person is.

Feeling a little self consciouse there Frank?

No. Not at all. Are you?

Quote:

I was talking in a generalization to the left on this thread.

Well the comment "...don't play dumb it doesn't suit you." sure as hell doesn't sound like it is being addressed to "the left" in general. It sounds as though it is being addressed to someone in particular. And since I had just been talking...I thought you might have intended it to me.

As I said, if you intend a comment for someone in particular, you really should let people know who that person is.

Unless you have no balls, of course.

But since you say your comment had something to do with "the left" and since I am not, in any way, part of "the left"...I guess you did not intend it for me.

Quote:

The major reason these people haven't been voted on is because of their religious views and the fear that they will bring those views into the court room, even though there is nothing to show that this has happened.

Really!

Where have you been living, Baldino...on Mars?

Quote:

It is a irrational fear of religion that the votes have not bee cast.

I don't often agree with Setanta, but I agree with him 100% on this. How the hell can any "fear of religion" be irrational.

I am terrified of it...and I am rational.

And quite honestly, I cannot understand how any rational being could possibly not be in abject fear of it.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

No Baldimo, you were not right--you rarely are. I do not fear the people, i fear the consequences of the injection of religious zealotry into the secular state, which is exactly what the religious right-wingnuts are attempting to accomplish . . .

I guess that would you a bigot for not allowing them to hold a job. There is nothing to show that these people have any time in their professional jobs interjected their religion into the work.

If they have, then please provide so sort of proof to back it up.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

I guess that would you a bigot [sic] for not allowing them to hold a job. There is nothing to show that these people have any time in their professional jobs interjected their religion into the work.

If they have, then please provide so sort of proof to back it up.

In the first place, a bigot is someone who considers him- or herself to be a member of a uniquely superior group. Although that may be an accurate description of me, you cannot establish it from what i've written in this thread. So keep your snotty, pathetic attempts at ad hominem for the playground, where i do not doubt you are considered a deadly debate opponent.

"These people" are in no danger of being unemployed, and in fact, cronyism will likely ensure that they have lucrative employment for as long as they want it. Once appointed to the bench, judges are usually almost completely free of restraint, and past public behavior and statements are the only clues that the Senate has as to what one might expect of a judge, once appointed. The truly disgusting hypocricy here on the part of Republicans in the Senate is that their complaint is based on a lie. The Shrub has gotten more of his appointments confirmed, proportionately, than any president in the last century. That others in the Senate, apart from the Republican leadership, hesitate and express reservations is simply the exercise of their constitutional mandate to advise before giving (or withholding) consent.

0 Replies

A person's religion is their own business. If they're in religion then it's their business as well. But if they're in politics, religion isn't part of their business. Politics and religion don't go together because both have different ways of reasoning (I've said it before somewhere so I'm plagiarising myself).

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

Setanta wrote:
No Baldimo, you were not right--you rarely are. I do not fear the people, i fear the consequences of the injection of religious zealotry into the secular state, which is exactly what the religious right-wingnuts are attempting to accomplish . . .

I guess that would you a bigot for not allowing them to hold a job. There is nothing to show that these people have any time in their professional jobs interjected their religion into the work.

If they have, then please provide so sort of proof to back it up.

setanta is not a bigot. but i believe, from reading your posts that you can make no such claim.

i think it should be stated clearly that there is ample evidence that some nominees have injected their own ideas on where the line that separates church and state lies, and those ideas are at fundamental odds with established jurisprudence. but don't think that just because they are going against history is my reasoning for not supporting them. after all it took the civil war to overturn the dread scott decision, so i have a healthy disrespect for going along with established traditons without examining whether they are relevant to the contextual circumstances.

but, their belief that they are entirely within bounds to inject their religious perspectives into their judical perspectives runs against both history as well as current mainstream values.

these folks are more radical than communists or anarchists, and allowing them free rein as lifetime appointments is a threat to our secular form of justice.

in the case of the handful (out of over 200 already confirmed) of other nominees being delayed in the senate all have shown a disregard for judicial precedence and have staked out positions that are well out the boundaries of mainstream values when it comes to the roll of government, corporations, and common citizens.

some, like Judge Brown are just bad judges.

but nowhere is any judge denied confirmation simply because of the faith they profess. and i find it disgraceful that republican senators have accused democratic senators of being anti-catholic, anti-espanic, and anti-black in these hearings because they are critical of the judicial philosophies of the nominees.

you wanted details.

http://saveourcourts.civilrights.org/nominees/index.html

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
Setanta wrote:
No Baldimo, you were not right--you rarely are. I do not fear the people, i fear the consequences of the injection of religious zealotry into the secular state, which is exactly what the religious right-wingnuts are attempting to accomplish . . .

I guess that would you a bigot for not allowing them to hold a job. There is nothing to show that these people have any time in their professional jobs interjected their religion into the work.

If they have, then please provide so sort of proof to back it up.

setanta is not a bigot. but i believe, from reading your posts that you can make no such claim.

i think it should be stated clearly that there is ample evidence that some nominees have injected their own ideas on where the line that separates church and state lies, and those ideas are at fundamental odds with established jurisprudence. but don't think that just because they are going against history is my reasoning for not supporting them. after all it took the civil war to overturn the dread scott decision, so i have a healthy disrespect for going along with established traditons without examining whether they are relevant to the contextual circumstances.

but, their belief that they are entirely within bounds to inject their religious perspectives into their judical perspectives runs against both history as well as current mainstream values.

these folks are more radical than communists or anarchists, and allowing them free rein as lifetime appointments is a threat to our secular form of justice.

in the case of the handful (out of over 200 already confirmed) of other nominees being delayed in the senate all have shown a disregard for judicial precedence and have staked out positions that are well out the boundaries of mainstream values when it comes to the roll of government, corporations, and common citizens.

some, like Judge Brown are just bad judges.

but nowhere is any judge denied confirmation simply because of the faith they profess. and i find it disgraceful that republican senators have accused democratic senators of being anti-catholic, anti-espanic, and anti-black in these hearings because they are critical of the judicial philosophies of the nominees.

you wanted details.

http://saveourcourts.civilrights.org/nominees/index.html

I do not really see anything wrong with any of these people. The only thing I happen to see repeatedly is the issue raised with civil rights. I see these people ruling on civil rights in a modern day world, not one of 30 to 40 years ago. The world has progressed and these people have tried to move it forward. They do not appear to be willing to cave to special interest minority groups when the law or circumstances do not deem it necessary.

There is a constant mention of them stepping out side of the main stream and I am reminded of the judges turning over the will of the people on voted issues. I would say they have stepped outside the main stream and you would applaud them for their rulings.

There was another mention of a judge being over turned and that being against his favor. If that were the case then the whole 9th circuit should be taken out of play as being the most over turned court in the country. I do not think being overturned should be a reason.

0 Replies

Re: Solving the Judicial Nomination Crisis

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Solving the Judicial Nomination Crisis
The Family Research Council
by: Mr. Brian Newell

· As Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) stated, "Taxpayers spend $5.1 billion for the federal judiciary every year. The American people are paying for fully staffed courts and are getting obstructionism and vacant benches."

Iraq War Topping $5.8 Billion A Month

Quote:

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon is spending more than $5.8 billion a month on the war in Iraq, according to the military's top generals.

0 Replies

Re: Solving the Judicial Nomination Crisis

Debra_Law wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Solving the Judicial Nomination Crisis
The Family Research Council
by: Mr. Brian Newell

· As Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) stated, "Taxpayers spend $5.1 billion for the federal judiciary every year. The American people are paying for fully staffed courts and are getting obstructionism and vacant benches."

Iraq War Topping $5.8 Billion A Month

Quote:
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon is spending more than $5.8 billion a month on the war in Iraq, according to the military's top generals.

Your point?

0 Replies

as i read the post, it would seem that the point has something to do with this;

Interview with Andrew Natsios, Administrator for the US Agency for International Development, with Ted Koppel, Nightline, ABC News, 23 April 2003 on the costs of Iraqi Reconstruction

Nightline: Project Iraq

April 23, 2003 Wednesday
Source: ABC News

TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) Our guest tonight is ANDREW NATSIOS, administrator of the Agency for International Development, the lead agency that is responsible for rebuilding the infrastructure of Iraq. Mr. Natsios was manager of Boston's "Big Dig," the largest public works project in American history. He is also a veteran of Desert Storm. He joins us here in our Washington studios. First of all, let me say that there is no evidence that anything illegal has been done or even anything improper. The question is, was it smart to exclude all non-American companies?

ANDREW NATSIOS
Well, first, that's Federal law. Federal statute requires that all Federal agencies only allow American companies to bid under the Federal acquisition statute.

TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) Actually, obviously, I have to defer to your expertise, but I'm not sure that that is true of all Federal statutes. The Army Corps of Engineers is not required to, is it?

ANDREW NATSIOS
Well, I think it is, but they can waive it. And I can waive it. And I did waive it in January for subcontracts. But the problem is, when we started this process, it was January. The President had not decide to go to war. If we had gone internationally to a big bidding process, it would've sent a huge message the decision had already been made when what we were doing was prudent contingency planning for what might happen. There was some likelihood it would happen, but a decision hadn't been made. So, we did do competition. It was limited competition. It's a procedure, let me just say, it's a procedure we used in Bosnia in the Clinton years, that's where we got this from. It was done to speed up the reconstruction of Bosnia. We also did it in Afghanistan and now we're doing for a third time in ten years in Iraq. And no one raised complaints about this before, I might add.

TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) Well, it's a, I think you'll agree, this is a much bigger project than any that's been talked about. Indeed, I understand that more money is expected to be spent on this than was spent on the entire Marshall Plan for the rebuilding of Europe after World War II.

ANDREW NATSIOS
No, no. This doesn't even compare remotely with the size of the Marshall Plan.

TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) The Marshall Plan was $97 billion.

ANDREW NATSIOS
This is 1.7 billion.

TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) All right, this is the first. I mean, when you talk about 1.7, you're not suggesting that the rebuilding of Iraq is gonna be done for $1.7 billion?

ANDREW NATSIOS
Well, in terms of the American taxpayers contribution, I do, this is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries who have already made pledges, Britain, Germany, Norway, Japan, Canada, and Iraqi oil revenues, eventually in several years, when it's up and running and there's a new government that's been democratically elected, will finish the job with their own revenues. They're going to get in $20 billion a year in oil revenues. But the American part of this will be 1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.

natsios interview, koppel transcript

0 Replies

Frist chooses
ambition over principles

I met Sen. Bill Frist shortly after he arrived in Washington and found him impressive. But time and tide have changed my view of him. He is now the Senate majority leader and an undeclared but neon-lit presidential candidate who is getting into shape for the long run to the White House by shedding anything that weighs him down.
In his case, it's principles.

Frist initially led the Senate's effort to keep poor Terri Schiavo alive even though every court that had heard her case had concluded she was, technically and sadly, dead. Now Frist will be joining a telecast that will attack Democrats as being hostile to "people of faith." It will focus on the filibuster that the Democrats have used to block 10 of President Bush's 229 judicial appointments. Some of the nominees are quaintly anachronistic in their views, but they believe in God, or so they aver, and must be supported no matter what else they think or do. Being a person of faith apparently means not having to be a person of thought.

I am pausing now to wonder if the phrase "people of faith" is meant to include Muslims of several wives or Hindus of several deities. I think somehow, however, that "people of faith" is meant to embrace only conservative Christians and maybe Orthodox Jews who are sometimes lumped together as Judeo-Christians. People of faith, you may rest assured, are people of their faith. All others need not apply.

The invocation of the phrase "people of" is no different when preceding "faith" than it is when preceding "color." It's a bold signal of mushy thinking, a corralling of people who have nothing in common other than a perceived - and often fictionalized - enemy. "People of faith" mischaracterizes what the political debate is all about. What Senate Democrats lack is not faith, but 50 votes. Frist knows this, of course, but his mad pursuit of the presidency requires him to prove to the Christian right that their cause comes before his principles.

He did this with Terri Schiavo, going so far as to use his medical bona fides (he's a heart surgeon) to view a videotape and pronounce Terri somewhat alert. This sort of stuff will not make him the next President of the United States. Instead, it shows what raw ambition has made him: A person of pander.

0 Replies

Right-wing Christian groups and the Republican politicians they bankroll have done much since the last election to impose their particular religious views on all Americans. But nothing comes close to the shameful declaration of religious war by Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, over the selection of judges for federal courts..
Frist is to appear on a telecast sponsored by the Family Research Council, which styles itself a religious organization but is really just another Washington lobbying concern. The message is that the Democrats who oppose a tiny handful of President George W. Bush's judicial nominations are conducting an assault "against people of faith." By that, Frist and his allies do not mean people of all faiths, only those of their faith..
It is one thing when private groups foment this kind of intolerance. It is another thing entirely when it's done by the highest-ranking member of the U.S. Senate, who swore on the Bible to uphold a Constitution that forbids the imposition of religious views on Americans. Unfortunately, Frist and his allies are willing to break down the rules to push through their agenda - in this case, by creating a false connection between religion and the debate about judges..
Frist and his backers want to take away the sole tool Democrats have for resisting the appointment of unqualified judges: the filibuster. This is not about a majority or even a significant number of Bush nominees; it's about a handful with fringe views or shaky qualifications. But Frist is determined to get judges on the federal bench who are loyal to the Republican fringe and, he hopes, would accept a theocratic test on decisions..
Frist has an even bigger game in mind than the current nominees: the next appointments to the Supreme Court, which the Republican conservatives view as their best chance to outlaw abortion and impose their moral code on the country..
A powerful branch of the Republican Party believes that the last election was won on "moral values." Even if that were true, that's a far cry from voting for one religion to dominate the entire United States. Bush owes it to Americans to stand up and say so.

0 Replies

Frist Set to Use Religious Stage on Judicial Issue

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know