What's the deal w/ Bill Frist?

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

First, he makes veiled threats at judges in the wake of the Terri Schiavo situation, then comes this story

 

WASHINGTON - As the Senate heads toward a showdown over the rules governing judicial confirmations, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R., Tenn.) has agreed to join a handful of prominent Christian conservatives in a telecast portraying Democrats as "against people of faith" for blocking President Bush's nominees.

 

Flyers for the telecast, organized by the Family Research Council and scheduled to originate at a Kentucky church the evening of April 24, call the day "Justice Sunday" and depict a young man holding a Bible in one hand and a gavel in the other.

 

Under the heading "the Filibuster Against People of Faith," the flyer reads: "The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and it is now being used against people of faith."

 

Organizers say they hope to reach an audience of more than a million people by distributing the telecast to churches around the country, over the Internet, and over Christian television and radio networks and stations that have agreed to participate.

 

Frist's spokesman said the senator's speech in the telecast would reflect his previous remarks on the subject of judicial appointments. In the past he has balanced a determination "not to yield" on Bush's nominees with simultaneous appeals to the Democrats for compromise.

 

Asked about Frist's participation that describes the filibuster "as against people of faith," his spokesman, Bob Stevenson, said: "Senator Frist is doing everything he can to ensure judicial nominees are treated fairly and that every senator has the opportunity to give the President their 'advice and consent' through an up or down vote."

 

Democrats accused Frist of exploiting religious faith for political ends by joining the telecast.

 

"No party has a monopoly on faith and for Senator Frist to participate in this kind of telecast just throws more oil on the partisan flames," Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D., N.Y.) said. "I think the American people pull back and react negatively when any party or part of a party tried to claim a monopoly on that issue."

 

The Democratic minority has blocked confirmation of 10 of Bush's nominees by withholding the 60 votes needed to close debate.

 

Frist has threatened that the Republican majority might change the rules to require only a majority vote on nominees, and Democrats have vowed to bring Senate business to a virtual standstill if he does.

 

Yeah, that's it: Democrats don't want to approve Bush's nominations because they're against "people of faith".

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Frist is whoring himself out because he wants to be President in 2008.

 

Here's the banner for the event:

 

Reese has a choice to make

[Jingus 0]

What's the deal? It's that he's from Tennessee. TN is like a factory for brilliant psychopaths.

[Vyce 0]

Yeah, that's it: Democrats don't want to approve Bush's nominations because they're against "people of faith".

 

See, I don't think this is such an outrageous claim to make.

 

Democrats are going to, naturally, try and block nominees they view as conservative (not "too conservative", they don't REALLY make that fine of a distinction). But if that nominee is conservative AND openly religious? Forget it, they don't have a prayer, pun intended.

 

Because no one in Congress ever really comes out and says it, but ultimately it ALL boils down to the issue of abortion, and Democrats aren't going to let anyone who's seriously religious onto the bench for the fear that they're somehow going to overturn abortion rights (even though that will NEVER happen).

[Jobber of the Week 0]

See, I don't think this is such an outrageous claim to make.

You're nuts if you don't think this will alienate regular people.

 

This is like Howard Dean's "I hate Republicans" quote but on an issue more people care about.

[Guest MikeSC]

See, I don't think this is such an outrageous claim to make.

You're nuts if you don't think this will alienate regular people.

 

This is like Howard Dean's "I hate Republicans" quote but on an issue more people care about.

The Dems REALLY don't want to play up their filibustering of qualified nominees SIMPLY because of a difference in ideology.

 

The Dems have been helped, mightily, that most people don't care. Make it an issue and it'll SLAUGHTER the left.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The Dems have been helped, mightily, that most people don't care. Make it an issue and it'll SLAUGHTER the left.

      -=Mike

Why? The country is for all intents and purposes majorily pro-choice.

[Guest MikeSC]

The Dems have been helped, mightily, that most people don't care. Make it an issue and it'll SLAUGHTER the left.

      -=Mike

Why? The country is for all intents and purposes majorily pro-choice.

They support, heavily, banning partial birth abortions.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

They support, heavily, banning partial birth abortions.

-=Mike

You think they don't know about all that already? Jesus, everybody's abortion position is only flaunted for all the media to see every election round.

[SuperJerk 0]

People need to stop equating being anti-abortion with being religious.

[Guest MikeSC]

They support, heavily, banning partial birth abortions.

          -=Mike

You think they don't know about all that already? Jesus, everybody's abortion position is only flaunted for all the media to see every election round.

The people overwhelmingly support the banning of partial birth abortions. Do you think forbidding judges from outlawing it will play well?

 

Then again, we have Dems who are protesting John Bolton because he doesn't like the group "he works for" --- ignoring that he won't actually work for the UN.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Good luck on that Robot.

 

I'm sure the answer to WWJD is "make a power grab"

[Guest MikeSC]

People need to stop equating being anti-abortion with being religious.

When the left has demonized all people who oppose abortion as being Bible thumpers --- well, there's a problem...

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

They support, heavily, banning partial birth abortions.

          -=Mike

You think they don't know about all that already? Jesus, everybody's abortion position is only flaunted for all the media to see every election round.

The people overwhelmingly support the banning of partial birth abortions. Do you think forbidding judges from outlawing it will play well?

What the fuck are you talking about? Judges don't have the power to outlaw partial birth abortion.

 

This entire argument is a red herring.

[Guest MikeSC]

They support, heavily, banning partial birth abortions.

          -=Mike

You think they don't know about all that already? Jesus, everybody's abortion position is only flaunted for all the media to see every election round.

The people overwhelmingly support the banning of partial birth abortions. Do you think forbidding judges from outlawing it will play well?

What the fuck are you talking about? Judges don't have the power to outlaw partial birth abortion.

 

This entire argument is a red herring.

Umm, they can EASILY rule in cases that bans on partial birth abortions are perfectly legal and Constitutional.

-=Mike

...It's cute when you think judges don't make law...

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

...It's cute when you think judges don't make law...

Name one law that judges have created

[Guest MikeSC]

...It's cute when you think judges don't make law...

Name one law that judges have created

Gay marriage in MA.

Abortion legality.

A right to privacy.

Affirmative action (they have kinda shot down laws ending it)

Illegals getting benefits.

-=Mike

...I can go on...

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

...It's cute when you think judges don't make law...

Name one law that judges have created

Gay marriage in MA.

Abortion legality.

A right to privacy.

Affirmative action (they have kinda shot down laws ending it)

Illegals getting benefits.

-=Mike

...I can go on...

So, overturning a law against something is really creating a law allowing it?

 

I guess under that POV, Lawrence v. Texas was really a law legalizing sodomy

[SuperJerk 0]

^Exactly.^

 

They support, heavily, banning partial birth abortions.

          -=Mike

You think they don't know about all that already? Jesus, everybody's abortion position is only flaunted for all the media to see every election round.

The people overwhelmingly support the banning of partial birth abortions. Do you think forbidding judges from outlawing it will play well?

What the fuck are you talking about? Judges don't have the power to outlaw partial birth abortion.

 

This entire argument is a red herring.

Umm, they can EASILY rule in cases that bans on partial birth abortions are perfectly legal and Constitutional.

But that's not what you said.

 

Ruling "in cases that bans on partial birth abortions are perfectly legal and Constitutional" isn't the same thing as "forbidding judges from outlawing it".

 

In order for the partial birth abortion bans to be considered Constitutional, they would need to still be allowed in cases where it is "necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother" (quoted from the Roe v. Wade decision).

[Guest MikeSC]

...It's cute when you think judges don't make law...

Name one law that judges have created

Gay marriage in MA.

Abortion legality.

A right to privacy.

Affirmative action (they have kinda shot down laws ending it)

Illegals getting benefits.

-=Mike

...I can go on...

So, overturning a law against something is really creating a law allowing it?

 

In these cases --- yes. Explicitly so. Hell, the courts told the MA legislature to CHANGE THE LAW within 6 months.

 

I didn't even get into the busing debacles of the 1970's.

I guess under that POV, Lawrence v. Texas was really a law legalizing sodomy

Nope. But Roe v Wade DID invent a national right to abortion on one of the flimsier pretenses in recent history.

-=Mike

[Slayer 0]

People need to stop equating being anti-abortion with being religious.

I don't think I have ever once heard a non-religious argument against abortion.

 

While I'm sure such arguments exist (ex: medical complications), I've yet to hear any from pro-lifers I know, and I've been on both sides of the debate

[Guest MikeSC]

^Exactly.^

 

They support, heavily, banning partial birth abortions.

          -=Mike

You think they don't know about all that already? Jesus, everybody's abortion position is only flaunted for all the media to see every election round.

The people overwhelmingly support the banning of partial birth abortions. Do you think forbidding judges from outlawing it will play well?

What the fuck are you talking about? Judges don't have the power to outlaw partial birth abortion.

 

This entire argument is a red herring.

Umm, they can EASILY rule in cases that bans on partial birth abortions are perfectly legal and Constitutional.

But that's not what you said.

 

Ruling "in cases that bans on partial birth abortions are perfectly legal and Constitutional" isn't the same thing as "forbidding judges from outlawing it".

Hardly. If you wish to pretend that judges DON'T invent law out of thin air, you can continue to do so. It'd be the height of foolishness, but feel free.

 

Judges can rule however they want on any case, ACTUAL Constitutional provisions be damned.

In order for the partial birth abortion bans to be considered Constitutional, they would need to still be allowed in cases where it is "necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother" (quoted from the Roe v. Wade decision).

Except for the reality that there is NO case where partial birth abortion is necessary. Not a single one. And to leave that proviso simply means abortionists can continue killing babies.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

People need to stop equating being anti-abortion with being religious.

I don't think I have ever once heard a non-religious argument against abortion.

 

While I'm sure such arguments exist (ex: medical complications), I've yet to hear any from pro-lifers I know, and I've been on both sides of the debate

It's barbaric. It deprives the child of ITS right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

More quotes from the Roe decision.

 

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

 

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

 

In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.

[Slayer 0]

People need to stop equating being anti-abortion with being religious.

I don't think I have ever once heard a non-religious argument against abortion.

 

While I'm sure such arguments exist (ex: medical complications), I've yet to hear any from pro-lifers I know, and I've been on both sides of the debate

It's barbaric. It deprives the child of ITS right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

-=Mike

And the "right to life" argument almost always falls back upon a set of religious arguments, in my experience.

[SuperJerk 0]

People need to stop equating being anti-abortion with being religious.

I don't think I have ever once heard a non-religious argument against abortion.

 

While I'm sure such arguments exist (ex: medical complications), I've yet to hear any from pro-lifers I know, and I've been on both sides of the debate

Most anti-abortion people may be religious, but being religious doesn't make you automatically pro-life. And being non-religious doesn't automatically make you pro-choice. The two things simply are NOT the same.

[Guest MikeSC]

More quotes from the Roe decision.

 

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

 

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

 

In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.

Except --- as they admit --- the "right to privacy" doesn't, you know, ACTUALLY exist. They made it up out of thin air.

 

And, funny, the judiciary says it's in no position to decide when life begins --- and then decides that life begins when the head emerges from the birth canal and makes ANY restrictions on abortion --- even when they claim the state has every right to do so in the 3rd trimester --- nigh impossible.

 

I, also, don't need to mention the Supreme Court's glorious history in deciding when certain people aren't actually people in the eyes of the law. I'm sure Dred Scott would have read this with a sense of deja vu.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

I doubt I will use the "You are allowed to burn flags law" (as established in United States v. Eichman)

 

I also will not use the law created by Nix v. Hedden which made the tomato a vegatable.

 

In these cases --- yes. Explicitly so.

 

So essentially the deletion of something from a lawbook is really just creating a law allowing the opposite.

 

Hell, the courts told the MA legislature to CHANGE THE LAW within 6 months

 

I'm pretty sure the practice of changing a law to make it more constitutional (or creating a newer law) isn't that stunning.

 

I didn't even get into the busing debacles of the 1970's.

 

Fire away on Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education.

 

I'm guessing that the idea of "get in compliance with a court decision" isn't that unique. I'm sure there's some cases with schools and desegregation and Brown v. Board of Education from the 1950s too.

 

I guess under that POV, Lawrence v. Texas was really a law legalizing sodomy

Nope. But Roe v Wade DID invent a national right to abortion on one of the flimsier pretenses in recent history.

 

Wait..

 

overturning laws against Abortion = laws legalizing abortion

 

but, overturning laws against sodomy doesn't equal laws legalizing sodomy?

 

You're being far too light on courts there.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I have few problems with abortion in the case of an extreme medical necessity, it's the "whoops I'm pregnant" cases I'm not pro-choice on. Actually, lots of girls that I know are also conditionally pro-choice/pro-life in this fashion, contrary to the belief that ALL females support abortion.

[Guest MikeSC]

In these cases --- yes. Explicitly so.

So essentially the deletion of something from a lawbook is really just creating a law allowing the opposite.

 

No, it's telling the people and the legislature to fuck off and the courts will decide what is and what is not law.

Hell, the courts told the MA legislature to CHANGE THE LAW within 6 months

I'm pretty sure the practice of changing a law to make it more constitutional (or creating a newer law) isn't that stunning.

When the courts have the unchecked power to order a legislature to change laws --- yeah, you got a real problem with checks and balances.

I didn't even get into the busing debacles of the 1970's.

Fire away on Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education.

 

I'm guessing that the idea of "get in compliance with a court decision" isn't that unique. I'm sure there's some cases with schools and desegregation and Brown v. Board of Education from the 1950s too.

Hmm, let's look at, oh, Kansas City. $1.7 BILLION spent on a busing plan by a judge. Yes, the JUDGE gave himself the power to spend the state's money --- which only pisses on the whole seperation of power thing (the legislature tends to have that power).

 

It only took about 20 years for a court to FINALLY step in and say that the judge might have crossed the line.

 

Sure, almost TWO BILLION DOLLARS were spent by a judge with no, you know, ACTUAL power to spend it...

 

They basically took one of the complaints in Brown v Bd of Education (that the black girl had to go across town to go to a black school) and, basically, did the EXACT same thing.

I guess under that POV, Lawrence v. Texas was really a law legalizing sodomy

Nope. But Roe v Wade DID invent a national right to abortion on one of the flimsier pretenses in recent history.

 

Wait..

 

overturning laws against Abortion = laws legalizing abortion

 

but, overturning laws against sodomy doesn't equal laws legalizing sodomy?

 

You're being far too light on courts there.

One can easily argue that nobody is harmed by sodomy. There is a legal justification for the state not being able to perform extreme search and seizure that would be necessary to enforce sodomy laws.

 

Nobody can argue that nobody is harmed by abortion.

-=Mike