55-7 Gop Lose

[space_ghost]

…lost??? …on somethings… ok, most things… but who’s counting…

Peace:thumbsup:

 

[jlw]

Philip P:

About the only issue you could legitimately make that case on would be abortion, and I personally don’t find anything particularly liberal in the pro-choice side (liberalism is generally about expanding the franchise of citizens and those deemed to have rights, pretty much the opposite of killing the unborn and denying their personhood).

The great triumphs of liberalism, i.e. environmental laws, fair labor standards, and so forth, have tended to be initiated by the legislative and exectutive branches, and only come before the courts when challenged on constitutional grounds. If upholding the constitutionality of these initiatives is “activist” judicialism, then I guess your statement makes sense, but this smacks of rhetorical strategy rather than substantive complaint.

And this STILL doesn’t address why conservatives (or anyone, for that matter) is so confident in the link between the president and expected judicial decisions. History suggests a far more tenuous link. Too tenuous for me to feel confident enough in it to make it a major part of my decisionmaking in voting, or to get too worked up over the judicial showdowns in Congress.

One FDR stacked the courts knowing his NewDeal was at least unconventional let alone unconstitutional.

Two, don’t confuse basic protections of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness (classic liberalism) with what is modern (post 1968)liberalism.

Modern liberalism is about forced egaltarianism of outcomes, professing that humanity can be secularly perfected through government policy, all the while disbelieving in an objective moral truth beyond what the State says today.

A John F Kennedy liberal is waaaay different from a Ted Kennedy liberal.

Three, no one here thinks that judgeships are the silver bullet. But they are very, very important in a litigation, lawsuit, excuse-making relativist-morality driven culture.

 

[Richardols]

I think that the moderates did a good thing in that they have now made it necessary for the President to actually consult with the Senate before proposing nominees.

They have held up the principles of compromise and consensus, which has been a governing rule in the Senate, and the compromise reached demonstrates the importance of reaching out to senators of both parties.

I don’t know how long the compromise will hold, but it certainly has weakened the hands both of the unyielding far-right and the far-left. IMO, anyway.

 

[jlw]

Why on earth?!! I’m one of the more knee-jerk bleeding heart leftist Dems on this Forum and I’ve never been threatened with suspension.

I hope she’ll be back soon.

Richard, you had me at knee-jerk.

For a liberal, you are reasonable. k2 was very reasonable too at one time. I think she just couldn’t take our love-affair with that stooopid cowboy with that annoying laugh any longer.

 

[rlg94086]

Richardols:

I don’t know how long the compromise will hold, but it certainly has weakened the hands both of the unyielding far-right and the far-left. IMO, anyway.

IMHO, I think the agreement won’t last very long. BTW…the President did consult with the Senate before presenting past nominees. This doesn’t mean he put forward nominees the far-left like, but he consulted…

Do you think the Senate should pre-approve nominees with a super majority before the President proposes them?

 

[Steve_Andersen]

It bugs me that the Reps are trying to sell their position on an “up or down vote” as the “constitutional” one
I would like to think that by time someone gets to the Senate they have actually READ the Constitution!
Is that too much to ask?
Or do they think the US population will just believe anything they’re told?

All the Constitution says is that the President shall nominate candidates and that they can’t take office without the Senate’s consent

Article 1 section 5 clearly states that the Senate is free to make up its own rules of procedure.
They could just as easily require a unanimous vote or just one vote and either way it would be constitutional

 

[jlw]

Article 1 section 5 clearly states that the Senate is free to make up its own rules of procedure.

Oh really?? So changing the rules wouldn’t bother you then??

Debate and then VOTE. That’s what the senate does.

 

[Philip_P]

Jlw:

Oh really?? So changing the rules wouldn’t bother you then??

Debate and then VOTE. That’s what the senate does.

As I already mentioned, the judgeship issue doesn’t get me too fired up. The whole filibuster thing does bother me, though, in so far as it seems the GOP doesn’t believe the minority should have ANY say in governing. Yes, Bush won, but almost half the country voted for the other guy – winning an election doesn’t entitle you to steamroll the opposition. I wonder, sometimes, if perhaps the fans of parliamentary systems had the right idea after all… Well, not really, but it’d be nice to make our system a bit more representative and less winner take all. Reforming the redistricting process would be a good start.

 

[Philip_P]

jlw:

One FDR stacked the courts knowing his NewDeal was at least unconventional let alone unconstitutional.

Two, don’t confuse basic protections of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness (classic liberalism) with what is modern (post 1968)liberalism.

Modern liberalism is about forced egaltarianism of outcomes, professing that humanity can be secularly perfected through government policy, all the while disbelieving in an objective moral truth beyond what the State says today.

A John F Kennedy liberal is waaaay different from a Ted Kennedy liberal.

Three, no one here thinks that judgeships are the silver bullet. But they are very, very important in a litigation, lawsuit, excuse-making relativist-morality driven culture.

Well, I kinda like most of FDR and post FDR Liberalism, what with the worker protections, environmental legislation, consumer protection laws, and all that good stuff. It’s an evolution from the earlier Liberalism, and with a few exceptions, I believe a good one. Roe v, Wade I see as a sort of bizarre aberretion that’s completely paralyzed the country and corroded national unity. It’s a wrong turn we took as a nation, and will eventually fall, as all bad decisions must. I think this will happen quite independently of who happens to be in the White House at the time.

Also, your point about FDR’s court packing I think feeds into a point of mine. One of the justices on the Roe v. Wade case was an FDR appointee - I seriously doubt FDR expected him to be deciding on whether the Constitution contains a right to abortion. What issues are we blind to today that future generations will struggle with?

 

[jlw]

Philip P:

As I already mentioned, the judgeship issue doesn’t get me too fired up. The whole filibuster thing does bother me, though, in so far as it seems the GOP doesn’t believe the minority should have ANY say in governing. Yes, Bush won, but almost half the country voted for the other guy – winning an election doesn’t entitle you to steamroll the opposition. I wonder, sometimes, if perhaps the fans of parliamentary systems had the right idea after all… Well, not really, but it’d be nice to make our system a bit more representative and less winner take all. Reforming the redistricting process would be a good start.

That’s a high school argument, Philip. The gaunlet for any nominee is the COMMITEE HEARINGS. If he/she makes it through the committee, the Q&A, the dirt, the smears, the spin, etc. The commitee gives a recomendation to the Senate floor, the senate debates, then it VOTES.

(incidently, I think a filibuster of legislation is legit*. Annoying, maybe, but legit. *I also think tying up something in commitee is legit. Annoying, but legit. But denying a vote (after debate) on the senate floor??? On judicial or cabinet nominees??)

You don’t like “winner take all”?? What a krock. If the democrats controlled the senate you’d say that?? No way. “Can’t we all get along” is a nice saying, but in the real world of politics and business, in the end, brass tacks, rules are rules, results are results, regardless about how we “feel” about it. Someone won, someone lost, there are consequences.

 

[Philip_P]

jlw:

That’s a high school argument, Philip.

If only more people had at least a high school knowledge of US government! It’s honestly quite frightening how ignorant most Americans are of basic civics. People on this site are naturally more informed than most, on average (that whole self selection by interests thing), but alas this is not so among the general population.

The gaunlet for any nominee is the COMMITEE HEARINGS. If he/she makes it through the committee, the Q&A, the dirt, the smears, the spin, etc. The commitee gives a recomendation to the Senate floor, the senate debates, then it VOTES.

I’m not an expert on the arcana of senate procedures, but from just the level of abstract principle, I don’t see why one delaying tactic is essentially better or wrose than the other. Besides, didn’t the GOP scrap a lot of previously available delaying tactics they used during the Clinton years?

You don’t like “winner take all”?? What a krock. If the democrats controlled the senate you’d say that?? No way. “Can’t we all get along” is a nice saying, but in the real world of politics and business, in the end, brass tacks, rules are rules, results are results, regardless about how we “feel” about it. Someone won, someone lost, there are consequences.

No, I don’t like winner take all. I prefer policy that comes out of a broad democratic consensus. My preferred state of affairs is the Legislature under the leadership of the opposite party as the Executive. If the Democrats had strong control of the Congress last time around, I may well have voted for Bush. I have a strong bias toward progressive government (and an even stronger bias toward people with ideas that work), but that’s not the same thing as loyalty to the Democratic party.

 

[trailblazer]

Philip P: You mean well, but your way is not the Catholic way of determining who to vote for. Please read the Catholic Answers Voters Guide.

As Catholics our primary responsibility is enculturating our values into society. 5 CATHOLIC NON-NEGOTIABLES: ABORTION, EUTHANASIA, EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH, HUMAN CLONING, MARRIAGE.

Yours in Christ,
Bob

 

[Philip_P]

**Philip P: You mean well, but your way is not **the Catholic way of determining who to vote for. Please read the Catholic Answers Voters Guide.

As Catholics our primary responsibility is enculturating our values into society. 5 CATHOLIC NON-NEGOTIABLES: ABORTION, EUTHANASIA, EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH, HUMAN CLONING, MARRIAGE.

Yours in Christ,
Bob

I have read the Catholic Answers guide. I disagree with it, on a lot of levels. I think the five issues it highlights are important, but I think there are also other important issues. Also, this dichotomy of “negotiable” and “non-negotiable” issues implies that you don’t have to give serious thought to allegedly negotiable issues. Finally, it doesn’t address what happens if the “non-negotiables” contradict each other.

Also, and this is a much harder and less charitable suspicion, but I’ll voice it just the same, I can’t help thinking that this is really the voting guide for serious republicans who are also Catholic - if the candidates were different, would the list of 5 still have been different to favor the Republican?

In any case, it’s primary the voting guide that drew my attention to this site, in the interest of engaging in discussion with those who strongly support it, and hopefully learn a few things about the mysterious interactions of politics and religion in this country. So please don’t take this reply as a dismissal, just a statement of a few reasons I don’t buy into the Catholic Answers political outlook.

 

[TPJCatholic]

The Catholic Answers guide has the following major Church source documents as references:

CCC Catechism of the Catholic Church

CPL Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Notes on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life

CRF Pontifical Council for the Family, Charter of the Rights of the Family

EV John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life)

RHL Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation

UHP Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons

[excerpted from the Catholic Answers site]

 

[Philip_P]

Have you checked out Faithful Citizenship, the guide published every presidential year by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops? It’s also very well grounded in Church theology and spirituality and supports a far more complete approach to voting. It’s entirely possible to vote Republican and use Faithful Citizenship, but unlike the CA voting guide, voting for either party is far from problematic when you use its criteria. That’s the way it should be; voting shouold require serious thought, prayer, and even difficulty.

Here’s the link to it:
usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/index.htm

BTW, I do think it’s good that people are using a voting guide at all, rather than simply voting bases on party affiliation or whether they like the way a candidate looks or some other shallow reason. Still, the CA guide is far too reductionist to be a solid guide to applying Catholic thought to voting.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

jlw:

Oh really??

Yes really. I’ve read the Constitution

jlw:

So changing the rules wouldn’t bother you then??

throwing out 200 plus years of parliamentary procedure simply on the basis of party politics would bother me immensely

But they are free to do it legally

Of course they would have to change to rules under the existing rules so it probably won’t fly

jlw:

Debate and then VOTE. That’s what the senate does.

They debate but IFAIK there is no rule that every issue brought up must be voted upon
I’m sure that at the end of every secession there are any number of motions that are tabled or expire.

That is what the Senate does

 

[TPJCatholic]

Philip,

The Bishops guide is no more binding on Catholics then the CA guide and it has one huge flaw: it basically implies that abortion is equal to all other sins…it is not!

 

[Richardols]

TPJCatholic:

Philip,

The Bishops guide is no more binding on Catholics then the CA guide and it has one huge flaw: it basically implies that abortion is equal to all other sins…it is not!

Abortion is a mortal sin, other acts are mortal sins too. So, how is one mortal sin not equal to another mortal sin?

 

[TPJCatholic]

richardols,

Simple, many sins are mortal that is true. Yet, do you really think stealing a pack of gum is temporally or eternally equal to slaughtering an innocent baby?

Life is the most precious gift God gives…to take it is one of the worst things we can.

 

[TPJCatholic]

richardols,

From tyhe Catechism:

CCC 1858
Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: “Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother.” The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.