Nuclear Option a good idea? (senate confirmation of judicial nominees by majority vot

[JamesSD]

GWB has this clever thing of appointing Black and Hispanic untraconservatives, then watching Dems squirm.

Priscilla Owen, was apparently labelled quite freewheeling and activist (ie., imposing her views above the law) by no less than Gonzales, GWBs current legal mouthpiece. Her credits are 1) black; 2) female, 3) rabidly opposed to abortion and other related liberal issues. Someone should post some info.

Ummm I did a google image search. While 2 and 3 are true, I'm pretty sure she's white. But you're right about the fact that the more extreme Bush nominations seem to be minorities.
While I doubt Bush's motives, at least he's not racist and puts his agenda first.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Is it okay not to have an opinion on this one?

I hope so.

 

[Pure]

The first to come of several: Priscilla Owen for Ct of Appeal

http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/Owen2005final.pdf
document summarized below
------

Austin American
Owen deserves a vote but not a confirmation

http://www.independentjudiciary.com/news/clip.cfm?NewsClipID=147
------



FIFTH CIRCUIT NOMINEEE PRISCILLA OWEN:

A RECORD OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND QUESTIONABLE ETHICS
Priscilla Owen was nominated and defeated in two successive Congresses, but President Bush recently nominated
her a third time. On the Texas Supreme Court, Justice Owen has consistently attempted to make law, rather than
interpret it, and has engaged in and defended questionable ethical practices.

AN EXTREME CONSERVATIVE ACTIVIST
• Priscilla Owen joined the Texas Supreme Court in 1994 with a new group of conservatives packaged by Karl
Rove, who served as her paid campaign consultant. The New York Times reported, “Justice Owen is
considered by legal analysts in Texas to be among the most conservative members of the Texas Supreme
Court, which, in turn, is considered one of the nation’s most conservative supreme courts.”

The Minneapolis
Star Tribune noted, “Even her conservative colleagues have commented on her habit of twisting the law to fit
her hyperconservative political views.” The San Antonio News Express found that “her record demonstrates a
results-oriented streak that belies supporters’ claims that she strictly follows the law.” The Houston
Chronicle concluded that she is “less interested in impartially interpreting the law than in pushing an agenda.”

ROUTINELY BACKS CORPORATIONS AGAINST WORKER AND CONSUMER PROTECTIONS

• Justice Owen reliably votes to throw out jury verdicts favoring workers and consumers against corporate
interests and dismisses suits brought by workers for job-related injuries, discrimination and unfair employment
practices. She has cast many such votes in dissent, with even her conservative colleagues – including former
colleagues, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Senator John Cornyn – finding for the injured parties. If
Justice Owen’s views had become law: employees would have to endure almost limitless abusive behavior from
their bosses to maintain a valid lawsuit; a teenager paralyzed in a car accident due to a faulty restraint system
would not have been allowed to sue in Texas courts; a vacuum cleaner manufacturer that failed to conduct a
background check before hiring a salesman with a history of sexual misconduct could not be held liable for thesalesman’s on-the-job rape of a prospective customer; the Texas civil rights statute would require an employee
to carry the near impossible burden of proving that discrimination was the exclusive reason for her dismissal,
rather than a “motivating factor”; and a developer could have bypassed a city’s water quality laws on the
grounds that they infringed on its constitutional rights. In the water pollution case, the court’s majority stated:
“Most of Justice Owen’s dissent is nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric and thus merits no response.”

A LAW-MAKING ACTIVIST, NOT A LAW-INTERPRETING JUDGE, IN ABORTION CASES

• Prior to her original nomination, in each of the many cases that came before her involving Texas’ Parental
Notification Act, Justice Owen voted against allowing a minor to obtain an abortion without notifying her
parents, often ignoring the law’s explicit exceptions. In one case, she advocated requiring a minor to show an
awareness of the “philosophic, moral, social and religious arguments that can be brought to bear” before
obtaining judicial approval for an abortion without parental consent. The statute contains no such requirement.

• Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, when he was one of Justice Owen’s colleagues on the Texas Supreme
Court, criticized Justice Owen in another case for attempting to re-write the parental notification statute, calling
her dissent “an unconscionable act of judicial activism.”

ENGAGED IN AND DEFENDED ETHICALLY QUESTIONABLE PRACTICES ON THE COURT

• Justice Owen has taken campaign contributions from law firms and corporations, including Enron and
Halliburton, and then, without recusing herself, ruled in their favor when their cases came before her.
• After an investigation by a district attorney and a ruling by the Texas Ethics Commission, the Texas
Supreme Court revised its practice of allowing law clerks to accept money during their clerkships from their
future law firm employers, including those litigating before the court. Justice Owen nevertheless defended
the practice and dismissed the matter as a “political issue dressed up as a good government issue.”

 

[rgraham666]

Jesus! That is a very scary person.

 

[impressive]

Jesus! That is a very scary person.

A very scary person who was just confirmed. *sigh*

 

[rgraham666]

A very scary person who was just confirmed. *sigh*

So much for the rule of law.

 

[amicus]

Well, perhaps now you can begin to share the feelings conservatives felt during the Johnson years when far Left Liberal judges were appointed all the way to the Supreme Court.

Imagine a procedure that had been illegal for over half a century suddenly overturned by activist left wing judges.

In 1973 until Roe V Wade, abortion was treated as homocide, enter the Liberal Court....so whine away but I personally hope it ushers in a generation long return to sanity away from the Left.

amicus...

 

[lil_elvis]

If anyone thinks that the agreement reached by the senate "moderates" to avoid the nuclear option has solved the matter, don't hold you're breath.

IT has only postponed the matter....wait til the next round of Bush nominees - he's still got plenty of vacancies to fill and I imagine at least one or two supreme court positions to fill before his term is over.

 

[~hellbaby~]

I say no incumbents next election. We voted these people to represent us, our needs, but instead of tackling issues like illegal immigration,border safety, outsorcing, the trade deficit, healthcare, a real approach toward education, not something producing nice numbers, social security, etc. They have put precedence on wasting time discussing a tactic that wastes time,Terry Shiavo, do not call lists,not to lessen these issues but there are more pressing issues.The fillibuster is part of the political foundation, leave it alone. These judges have waited this long, if they truley cared about the country they'd step aside and say tend to other issues first, then worry about us.

 

[amicus]

Hellbaby said...."...I say no incumbents next election. We voted these people to represent us, our needs, but instead of tackling issues like illegal immigration,border safety, outsorcing, the trade deficit, healthcare, a real approach toward education, not something producing nice numbers, social security, etc. ..."

It seems to be such a mindset for many that 'government' can solve problems such as the ones you listed above.

Just for a moment consider your assumption to be in error.

Tens of millions of people all over the world are lined up to come to America because we are free of government oppression, have a booming economy and wide open opportunity for people who want a chance to work for themselves.

There is no 'problem' with 'oursourcing'; Union Labor in the United States has driven employee costs so high that it is cheaper and more efficient for business and industry to relocate.

The basic function of business is to supply goods and services of high quality and the lowest competitive prices. In a free market place, individuals pick and choose among those products and services.

Trade deficits, healthcare...as if 'government' can solve those problems.

Perhaps if you think you 'deserve' or have a 'right' to the services of a doctor or dentist, then perhaps you are justified in wanting to use the force of government to gain those things for you.

If I am a doctor, you may 'buy' my services and I 'may' sell them to you, but if you attempt to force me to treat you, I will refuse and perhaps move to another country that respects my freedom.

amicus...

 

[~hellbaby~]

Hellbaby said...."...I say no incumbents next election. We voted these people to represent us, our needs, but instead of tackling issues like illegal immigration,border safety, outsorcing, the trade deficit, healthcare, a real approach toward education, not something producing nice numbers, social security, etc. ..."

It seems to be such a mindset for many that 'government' can solve problems such as the ones you listed above.

Just for a moment consider your assumption to be in error.

Tens of millions of people all over the world are lined up to come to America because we are free of government oppression, have a booming economy and wide open opportunity for people who want a chance to work for themselves.

There is no 'problem' with 'oursourcing'; Union Labor in the United States has driven employee costs so high that it is cheaper and more efficient for business and industry to relocate.

The basic function of business is to supply goods and services of high quality and the lowest competitive prices. In a free market place, individuals pick and choose among those products and services.

Trade deficits, healthcare...as if 'government' can solve those problems.

Perhaps if you think you 'deserve' or have a 'right' to the services of a doctor or dentist, then perhaps you are justified in wanting to use the force of government to gain those things for you.

If I am a doctor, you may 'buy' my services and I 'may' sell them to you, but if you attempt to force me to treat you, I will refuse and perhaps move to another country that respects my freedom.

amicus...

Then what is the purpose of government if not to work in the best interests of its citizens? Is allowing unjust proportions of cheaper goods into the U.S. without the same ratio of export, at the cost of manufacturing jobs,small businesses that strive for the 'American Dream',only to have it taken away from them by cheaper foreign trade really in our best interest?
Is it OK to give sexual assault criminals viagria while grandmom cannot get her cancer medication? While healthcare may not be entirely the government's responsibility{even though most every other country it is}shouldn't they do a better job at regulating the part that is their responsibility?

 

[amicus]

Hellbaby, you asked the question at the root of many discussions:

"...
Then what is the purpose of government if not to work in the best interests of its citizens? ..."

I personally stand by the Constitution of the United States, which advocates a very small central government that acts basically to only 'protect' the innate rights of the people to possess life, liberty and property.


The trouble with wanting government to do more begins with taxation, when to allow government to take a portion of a persons income...government seems to never get enough and it wants more and more.

Second, government is made up of people, just like you and I, not better or worse and there are crooks and slackers in government also.

Third, I personally do not like to be 'told' what to do, what to eat, drink or smoke, do not like to be 'forced' to do anything I don't want to.

And that is the only means that government has to get things done, steal your money and 'force' you to obey. The less of that I have, the better I like it.

The free market place, in terms of your question about trade, will allow capital and labor and products and services to flow where it is needed. It is determined by the dynamics of the market place, by supply and demand.

When government acts to 'protect' a business or an industry, to set 'tariff's', taxes on trade, it increases price to the consumer, restricts the market place and disturbs the free flow of goods and services.

Well, anyway...thats part of it...

regards...amicus...

 

[~hellbaby~]

Hellbaby, you asked the question at the root of many discussions:

"...
Then what is the purpose of government if not to work in the best interests of its citizens? ..."

I personally stand by the Constitution of the United States, which advocates a very small central government that acts basically to only 'protect' the innate rights of the people to possess life, liberty and property.


The trouble with wanting government to do more begins with taxation, when to allow government to take a portion of a persons income...government seems to never get enough and it wants more and more.

Second, government is made up of people, just like you and I, not better or worse and there are crooks and slackers in government also.

Third, I personally do not like to be 'told' what to do, what to eat, drink or smoke, do not like to be 'forced' to do anything I don't want to.

And that is the only means that government has to get things done, steal your money and 'force' you to obey. The less of that I have, the better I like it.

The free market place, in terms of your question about trade, will allow capital and labor and products and services to flow where it is needed. It is determined by the dynamics of the market place, by supply and demand.

When government acts to 'protect' a business or an industry, to set 'tariff's', taxes on trade, it increases price to the consumer, restricts the market place and disturbs the free flow of goods and services.

Well, anyway...thats part of it...

regards...amicus...

You make a lot of good points and I agree with most of what you say. However, what is happening in terms of trade is we are selling our souls to china, putting a lot of smaller manufacturing and other businesses out of business and increasing debt, which has America virtually owned by foreign interests, which I'm sure greatly influences a bit of the decisions being made in all areas of governmental control.
The ever increasing amount of illegals crossing our borders is straining healthcare in some states, Florida for example, to the point hospitals are faced with closing. Millions of our tax dollars are paying for hospital visits for illegals for whom we give healthcare and they are not incline to pay for services received. There is no legal recourse because they are not citizens.
Outsorcing is a problem,we are sending good, high paying jobs overseas in leiu of the almighty dollar.
I personally think it is a disgrace to call America Online for tech. support and speak to someone in India.
just my 2 Lincoln's worth
BTW~ I do not and will not shop at walmart, I searched for hours and found nothing made in the USA there.
To Quote Thomas Jefferson...."
"I have come to a resolution myself as I hope every good citizen will, never again to purchase any article of foreign manufacture which can be had of American make be the difference of price what it may."

 

[Pure]

No, Amicus, you're not a constitutionalist

I personally stand by the Constitution of the United States, which advocates a very small central government that acts basically to only 'protect' the innate rights of the people to possess life, liberty and property.

Actually, you reject the constitution as well as the democratic process. You object to valid amendments after number 12, which were passed by huge majorities in house and senate, and favored by huge majorities. As per the constituiton.

You do not like valid Supreme Ct decisions since Dred Scott, including those of appointees by Republican presidents. You object to decisions where Republican appointees (of Republicans) have joined with the liberals, i.e, the Republicans with concerns for individual rights.

Your only allegiance is to a pie in the sky ideal, and when told most americans have repeatedly rejected it, you say, 'democracy can be wrong.'

You are no constitutionalist or democrat. Rather an idealist with a scheme, like Fourier or Campanella. Somewhat like a 'naturist' (nudist) who goes around saying "If everyone would just take off their clothes, we'd have peace and happiness in the world."

Truth be told, I believe you hold the original constitution to have several defects, for instance its giving the fed a role in interstate commerce-- something your guidebook says should be unregulated.

 

[amicus]

Hellbaby...nice post...interesting...

I would not deny that many jobs are being lost to outsourcing, all over the world.

I would not deny that illegal aliens not just from Mexico, but from all over the world as they are smuggled in daily, are not a problem in many areas, they are.

So rather than give you my take on just those two issues, perhaps you will explain just how you would stop companies from going overseas and how you would prevent people from shopping at Walmart and other such outlets that offer low prices and competitive quality?

Then explain just how you would close the borders, apprehend all the illegals and then explain who would do the work that "even blacks will not do" (that statement was in the news a few days ago..forgot who said it..."

My first computer was an NEC (Nippon Electric Company) made in Japan, I shopped for a week not wanting to buy anything other than IBM, but I chose the best quality at the lowest price.

Secondly, controlling the market place, for example to protect the 'Typewriter" industry and all the jobs and businesses and manufacturing outlets that producing typewriters involved, would have destroyed a fledgling computer industry. Same thing with Horses and Cars when the automobile came on the scene.

Had government acted to protect the horse carriage business from the competition of the automobile, we might still be pitching hay and shovelling doodooo...

grins...


amicus...

 

[amicus]

Pure...you said in part: "...Truth be told, I believe you hold the original constitution to have several defects, for instance its giving the fed a role in interstate commerce-- something your guidebook says should be unregulated..."


Agreed. The Constitution does have several defects. It was not and is not carved in stone or handed down from God.

It is a living document that can and has been amended.

However, it is to the 'spirit' of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence to which I owe allegiance.

My positions on philosophy, economics, ethics and morals and politics in general is very clear and consistent. I always advocate human freedom and respect for life, liberty and property.

I do not mind that you, and others, disagree. What I do mind is that many attack my concepts of individual human liberty rather than defend their positions.

Every act of government is an act of force against those who disagree. I do not advocate force.

Every act of government is an act financed by taxation, the mandatory confiscation of the wealth of some by others. I do not advocate using force to carry out the programs 'I' advocate.

I have yet to read one full justification of the right to use force against an individual for the benefit of society as a whole.

By what right do you claim even one moment of my time or that of a medical doctor in a nationalized health plan?

Please justify how you can confiscate the wealth and time of others to support the masses.

It has been tried..and failed in every example in the past.

amicus...

 

[~hellbaby~]

Hellbaby...nice post...interesting...

I would not deny that many jobs are being lost to outsourcing, all over the world.

I would not deny that illegal aliens not just from Mexico, but from all over the world as they are smuggled in daily, are not a problem in many areas, they are.

So rather than give you my take on just those two issues, perhaps you will explain just how you would stop companies from going overseas and how you would prevent people from shopping at Walmart and other such outlets that offer low prices and competitive quality?

Then explain just how you would close the borders, apprehend all the illegals and then explain who would do the work that "even blacks will not do" (that statement was in the news a few days ago..forgot who said it..."

My first computer was an NEC (Nippon Electric Company) made in Japan, I shopped for a week not wanting to buy anything other than IBM, but I chose the best quality at the lowest price.

Secondly, controlling the market place, for example to protect the 'Typewriter" industry and all the jobs and businesses and manufacturing outlets that producing typewriters involved, would have destroyed a fledgling computer industry. Same thing with Horses and Cars when the automobile came on the scene.

Had government acted to protect the horse carriage business from the competition of the automobile, we might still be pitching hay and shovelling doodooo...

grins...


amicus...

That statement was made by the president of mexico, and has put many into a quiet rage. It seems the public has found a way to do what the government won't to protect our borders. The citizens are taking matters into their own hands to guard the borders and it is working quite well, so well they are expanding into California, as the powers that be turn a blind eye and keep trying to push CAFTA into the faces of anyone they can.

We are not talking computers and cars here, we are talking textiles, clothing. The last I've seen the basic functionality and general design of wearing apparel has been the same for some 2000 plus years.

Competition is fine if it is done fairly,on a level field.

U.S citizens don't have to be losing their jobs to cheap overseas labor.
Imagine what could happen if we just agreed to not buy one item made overseas, any little thing, say...Tea maybe??

 

[amicus]

Well, I guess in a way you answered the two questions, vigilantes and hoping people would unite to have another 'tea party'. But not really the 'tea' incident followed a long build up of taxes imposed by the British Monarchy.

The labor problem is not a new one, thirty years ago as I was rebuilding an old sailboat in Miami, Florida, I took a job in a clothing factory, 'Magda' I think it was called, pushing a cart of material from a supply area to where the women worked actually sewing the garmets together.

250 Cuban women worked in that factory, very few african americans and no whites, the labor was beneath their dignity, the plant manager said.

Sewing clothing is boring repetitious work, women and girls chat and laugh and giggle and sew like hell, some work by the piece, others got a small salary.

As a boy, I worked in the fields, picking crops, green beans, strawberries, apples, pears, whatever work was available. Poor white folk did that until the Mexican families came in and followed the season. Farmers prefered the Mexicans as they worked hard, took care of their families and caused little or no problems.

I am sure you don't recall, but 'Chavez Ravine' the scene of a farm labor conflict a long time ago was the farm laborers union attempt to keep mechanization out of agriculture and to force farmers to pay higher wages to american farm workers.

They key to understanding the conflict is to understand the nature of a 'guild' mentality. Union laborers wish to restrict those who work in a particular area, prevent changes in the method of work and protect their jobs and their benefits.

Not hard to understand as we all want job security.

However...just to satisfy the coal miners union politicians have restricted other means of generating electricity in many areas. And steel miners and workers attempt to keep low price steel out of america to protect their jobs. And automobile workers do the same, they resist new methods and new technology as long as they can.

So they keep their jobs and the general public suffers from pollution because of coal burning plants, pays 30 to 50 percent more per automobile just to pay the wages of 'union' automobile workers. Housing is another such area where powerful laws and construction unions drive up the cost of a new home by as much as 30 to 50 thousand dollars, just so the 'union' labor can keep their jobs.

Is union labor that much more qualified? No. It is not. In fact, 'union made' has become a curse in the competitive world.

People act in their own best interests. I like chicken noodle soup and for years only bought 'Campbells' soup...but in recent years, a can of brand name soup cost 50 cents more than a store brand, which is just as good, if not better.

People who shop at Walmart and other large outlets, bargain shop. They look for price and quality...in their own best interest.

The function of a market place is not to protect jobs, not to stabilize an economy or benefit union workers. The function is to provide the consumer with quality goods at the lowest possible price. The free market place works automatically to do just that.

The world is constantly changing, like it or not. We can not stand in one place but must evolve along with the technology or be left behind. Blue collar workers must upgrade their abilities and skills to compete in the 21st century. I think you know that.


regards...amicus...

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Every act of government is an act financed by taxation, the mandatory confiscation of the wealth of some by others. I do not advocate using force to carry out the programs 'I' advocate.

I have yet to read one full justification of the right to use force against an individual for the benefit of society as a whole.

Well, Amicus, I must compliment you on your new, more civil tone. It makes me think that discourse might be possible.

I'd be interested in your take on the current Cod Crisis. As you may or may not know, the Grand Banks, which as late as the '60's was thought to contain an "inexhaustible" supply of codfish, has been fished out. The cod are gone, and are apparently not coming back. Something like 30,000 fisherman in Eastern Canada have lost their jobs. The banks were overfished--fished to death--by entrepreneurial commercial fishermen from many nations who took all they could get in big trawlers that scraped the sea raw.

Similar things are happening to 75% of the world's fishing grounds. This is a very real crisis which, because it impacts 3rd world countries more than us, we hear little about, but it's real.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3695/is_200501/ai_n11849364

Now, I'd like to know how you might address this problem without government intervention, and while sticking to your principles of absolute laissez faire capitalism.

No red herrings (NPI) about the seriousness or lack of seriousness of the problem. If you don;t believe it's a real crisis, let's just take it as a hypothetical case. I'd like to know what you'd do about the disappearance of the fishing grounds.

---dr.M.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I think the Republicans will quickly regret changing the rules to disallow filibusters. The current Republican Party has a party platform that is not at all dissimilar to the dot-com bubble in the 90s. Its bullshit, they know its bullshit, and they're trying to milk as much out of everyone before people start noticing that the rhetoric they're using doesn't match up with their actions. Eventually though, some Dem with a pair will actually stand up, point out how the elephant has no clothes with some choice expletives and a bible and the Republican Party will be in worse shape than it was under say Johnson or Roosevelt. While it is true the Repubs have made an art out of screwing something up completely and then blaming the Dems (see California energy crisis and deregulation), some future Dem party that decides that having a soul isn't as important as fighting for the constitution will take full advantage of the rules change. Remember civil rights was delayed by filibuster as well as a lot of other liberal legislation from the 60s and 70s.

The court-packing for agenda thing will also likely bite them in the butt. The "liberal" court that's blamed for the civil rights and reproductive rights scandals was decidely Republican and the judges were thought to be relatively conservative before they started doing that whole believing the whole "all men are created equal" bit of the DOI. Again, it could begin a trend of agenda based judges instead of constitution based judges and that'll be bad for conservatives when the other penny drops.

These modern Republicans might be nailing in their own coffins right now considering that one Democrat with a backbone is all it takes to split the party's base in twain. And despite appearances, they can't be spineless forever. America is a liberal nation. And very few people want the world the neocons are striving to enforce by any means neccessary. Even amicus would rebel against it though he strives to build it. And some day, quite soon by my estimation, people are going to start noticing that.

People may be stupid, but their stupidity is predictable and if truth can find a strong enough carrier, it will reach them. And that'll be bad day for the terrorist loving, bible raping, freedom despising, nazi worshiping, troop hating, anti-worker, anti-American Republican Party.

So if they want to doom themselves once people realize that this is an extreme minority in power right now, all power to them. They will live to regret it.

 

[~hellbaby~]

.

Exactly, and with increasing dependence on foreign markets and decreasing attention to advancing our failing education system we are already in the dust trail. How can America ever export enough to balance its negative balance of trade if it has a declining manufacturing base?
We are not standing still~we are running backwards.

 

[Pure]

Liberty, amicus style. $$$ talk

Amicus said,
I always advocate human freedom and respect for life, liberty and property.

Actually this is not true. Your one value is the freedom to buy and sell, including human labor. All else will be sacrificed. You don't support 'liberty' in general, e.g., around jobs, reproductive rights, etc.

Example 1. You support Judge Owen's appointment, and she has been identified as almost always siding with corporate interests. E.g., when a woman complained of sex harassment and was fired, Owen insisted that the law required her to show that the ONLY reason she was fired was the sex harassment complaint, not just that it was a 'motivating factor.' IOW, you happily curtail this woman's liberty to work unharassed, in order to further corporate interests. Indeed you probably are against all federal law in the 'sex harassment' field.

Example 2. You support a ban on abortion, by federal law, everywhere. Thus every woman with a fertilized egg is ordered by the state to house it and the foetus for the next nine months, THEN put it up for adoption if she doesn't want it.
The woman's liberty means nothing to you. You force her to bear a rapist's child.

Example 3. When workers join together and press for higher wages, you favor NO legal obstacles to the company firing all of them. I.e., you oppose any legislation protecting unions. Hence the workers 'liberty of association' and 'liberty to pursue' higher wages is curtailed. What matters to you is, say, Walmart's liberty to make a profit and fire people if they get inconvenient.

Example 4. Were fired workers to form a peaceful, non-obstructive (i.e., informative) picket line, and this affected the company's business, you would not impede the company in breaking up (or removing) the line, and replacing the people. IOW, the 'free speech' of workers is curtailed, where company profits are affected.

BTW, I have two historical questions:
Was the constitution defective, as drafted, in allowing slavery?
Were the amendments 13, 14, and 15, which were designed to address slavery (at a federal level) proper and valid? (Or should the matter be left to individual states and plantation owners.?)

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I think the Republicans will quickly regret changing the rules to disallow filibusters. The current Republican Party has a party platform that is not at all dissimilar to the dot-com bubble in the 90s. Its bullshit, they know its bullshit, and they're trying to milk as much out of everyone before people start noticing that the rhetoric they're using doesn't match up with their actions. Eventually though, some Dem with a pair will actually stand up, point out how the elephant has no clothes with some choice expletives and a bible and the Republican Party will be in worse shape than it was under say Johnson or Roosevelt. While it is true the Repubs have made an art out of screwing something up completely and then blaming the Dems (see California energy crisis and deregulation), some future Dem party that decides that having a soul isn't as important as fighting for the constitution will take full advantage of the rules change. Remember civil rights was delayed by filibuster as well as a lot of other liberal legislation from the 60s and 70s.

The court-packing for agenda thing will also likely bite them in the butt. The "liberal" court that's blamed for the civil rights and reproductive rights scandals was decidely Republican and the judges were thought to be relatively conservative before they started doing that whole believing the whole "all men are created equal" bit of the DOI. Again, it could begin a trend of agenda based judges instead of constitution based judges and that'll be bad for conservatives when the other penny drops.

These modern Republicans might be nailing in their own coffins right now considering that one Democrat with a backbone is all it takes to split the party's base in twain. And despite appearances, they can't be spineless forever. America is a liberal nation. And very few people want the world the neocons are striving to enforce by any means neccessary. Even amicus would rebel against it though he strives to build it. And some day, quite soon by my estimation, people are going to start noticing that.

People may be stupid, but their stupidity is predictable and if truth can find a strong enough carrier, it will reach them. And that'll be bad day for the terrorist loving, bible raping, freedom despising, nazi worshiping, troop hating, anti-worker, anti-American Republican Party.

So if they want to doom themselves once people realize that this is an extreme minority in power right now, all power to them. They will live to regret it.

This country is neither liberal nor conservative. Its nature is dual, like most people, embraceing both the new and the traditional. While the overall effect is to embrace them both in equal measure, over short periods the country swings far to one side or the other.

We are in a very conservative period now. This is motly due to a world situation that is ripe for conservatism. When there is great fear and uncertainty, people tend to cling to that which they know even tighter than in times of less stress. When there is less fear and more goodwill, people tend to find themselves more open to change, new ideas and radical moves.

The GOP has done a masterful job of harnessing the fear and uncertainty that exists in the world today to foster a rabid backlash. In time, the fear will pass. Ossama can't live forever and like Castro, he will eventually become a toothless bogeyman if he survives.

One thing I've noticed while on my drug induced sabbatical. The current administration and its policies are fostering fear and uncertanty. They are fostering instability and conflict. In a small way, they are perpetuating the cycle of fear on the world stage, that is their golden cow on the national stage.

The Dems modified the rules when they held what seemed to be a perpatual majority. The GOP is riding high now and it isn't hard to understand that they, like the dems before them, can't forsee an end to their majority.

Pride goeth before the fall. The GOP is becoming prideful. That said, an alternative must be presented that will allow their pride to be a stumbling block. I don't see it yet. Unless pride becomes arrogance, it may be a while before the situation stabilizes and the countries proclivity liberalizes again.

A strong voice for truth could hasten the time of that fall. I don't think the Dems have such a voice. Moderation will come slowly, fueld more by small changes at the roots of the political process.

The GOP will not always be ascendant. No party is ever waxing forever. The only question is how long they remain ascendant and how fast and far they fall.

 

[rgraham666]

I'll disagree with you on one point, Colleen.

The people currently running the Republicans are not conservatives, but revolutionaries. If the situation had been ripe, they would have hijacked the Democrats instead.

They have no party policy. The party they grabbed was simply a tool to an end.

And I'm not at all sure they'll lose power. They are busily stacking the deck so that elections here are about as fair as elections in Cuba or Zimbabwe.

 

[amicus]

Hellbaby, Luc, Pure...et al....


I thought not to respond as some of the rhetoric has turned vicious and mean spirited.

But reconsidering, perhaps others will notice just how rabid and 'anti' those detesting the United States has become.

Slavery existed everywhere in the world, from the beginning of recorded history. It is often difficult to place ones self in perspective and in context when the Constitution was being drafted and formalized.

For those who care to know, both slavery and women's rights were considered, discussed and debated.

It is politically incorrect to point out that the general Intelligence Quotient of those with African heritage runs about fifteen points below both Asian and Caucasian levels.

This has been constantly shrugged off as testing deficiencies et cetera.

Considering women, I have maintained, much to the chagrin of many, that the case to support fully empowering women is yet to be made.

While I do not advocate oppression of women or minority races, I am of the opinion that neither have fully taken the responsiblility to act rationally within the framework of freedom and equality.

Now, let us revisit the 1600's prior to and including the emergence of the American colonies. Knowing the era and the context, a 'rational' person can comprehend the difficulty of codifying laws concerning women and minorities that have never, never in the entire preceding history of the world, been done before.

What's next?

Some people are so immersed in Marxist concepts concerning labor and capital that they cannot see beyond the dogma. That is sad.

There is no inherent conflict between business and labor. There is an age old myth concerning 'have's and have not's' that is left over from the class distinctions of medieval europe and othr parts of the world.

America was first to proclaim there is no 'royalty' no class of people above the common law, none born to rule. Aristocratic snobs are still infuriated that 'common people' possess the same rights and liberties as do the upper class.

The inbred hatred of a free market system by those who dream of an utopian paradise links back to an irrational desire to manage and control the lives of others.

I have never expected to put even a small dent in the true believers. However, it continues to touble me that younger people step in the filth of the Liberal Left and somehow carry the odor wherever they go.

Someone spoke of abortion as women's reproductive rights.

Since formal religion has failed to provide an ethical and moral foundation for rational people and human life cannot rationally be considered 'sacred', mankind has been searching for a moral code that is comprehensible and workable.

Many people consider conception to be the beginning of human life.

Many people consider human life to be the basic, fundamental value upon which all other values rest.

That being the case, the imperative of protecting that 'life' takes precedence over an individuals 'choice' to destroy it.

And yes it is a conflict and yes it is controversial. And yes the debate has been raging for over thirty years.

Few people if any would knowingly destroy a human life without just cause. Most people are very uneasy with the entire issue of abortion on demand and wish it would just go away.

Colleen Thomas touched on the 'pendulum' appearance of national politics, but missed, I think, an important and defining characteristic.

The 'center' is defined by the extremes, in general. There are many shades of grey but only one 'black' and one 'white', at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

There are also many shades of truth, partial truths, incomplete truth's and of course the individuals ability to perceive and comprehend those truths.

"We hold these truths to be self evident..."

It is not an easy task to formulate a whole and complete philosophy of life, a non contradictory system of ethics and morality.

Although not easy, it is/should be the focus of every rational, thinking person.

It is a complex area of debate; take for example the current conflict over stem cell research. Is it moral to use fetal material (human life) for laboratory research?

During the reign of Hitler, Nazi doctors experimented on living human beings, 'for the sake of knowledge and science'. Was that moral or ethical?

It seems far fetched to classify a human embryo as 'life', but if not, then where is the line drawn?

Again, I do not expect my arguments to sway the righteous left; but for those of you who 'think' instead of believe, I still have a little hope for you.


the omnipotent amicus, the viral infection that insists on open competition even between inconsequential bytes....