Injustice Sunday - How many lemming churches will fall for this hypocrisy?
Radical right's anti-filibuster show an assault on truthBy Larry Dale Keeling
HERALD-LEADER EDITORIAL WRITER
Welcome to Injustice Sunday.
Today, if all goes as planned, Kentucky will play host to a well-scripted immorality play in which political and religious extremists pummel truth beyond recognition and twist Christianity into an ugly caricature of itself in their crusade to give Dubya the opportunity to perform an extreme makeover on the federal courts, packing their benches with enough "faith first, law last" judges to tilt our legal system dangerously toward the model of the Spanish Inquisition.
To achieve their goal, they will pull a couple of pages from the Neo-con Republicans Political Playbook.
So, expect someone, perhaps Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (he of the long-distance medical diagnosis who once again is reaching out from afar to kiss up to the religious extremists) to repeat the hogwash he and others have been spreading lately: that Senate Democrats' threat to filibuster some of Dubya's more controversial appellate nominations is unprecedented.
You don't have to go back to 1968, when Senate Republicans led a successful filibuster against the nomination of then-Justice Abe Fortas for chief justice of the Supreme Court, to expose that falsehood.
You need only go back to 2000, when Frist himself cast one of the votes against cloture in the filibuster of Richard Paez's appeals court nomination. That was one of 14 filibusters of appeals court nominations that resulted in cloture votes between 1980 and 2000.
Unprecedented? Unmitigated bull.
Expect also to hear some tripe about Senate Democrats filibustering against "people of faith and moral conviction." To buy into that malarkey, you must believe that the 204 judicial nominees approved during Dubya's first term (only 10 of the most controversial were blocked by the Democrats) are lacking in "faith or moral conviction." I suspect some of those folks might take exception to such an assertion.
So, you may hear Focus on the Family's James Dobson, another of the pettifoggers scheduled to star in this immorality play, repeat his comments likening the black robes of Supreme Court justices to the white robes of the Ku Klux Klan.
Or some other member of the cast might reiterate House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's assertion: "The time will come for (the judges involved in the Terri Schiavo case, whom he accused of running 'amok') to answer for their behavior."
Such inflammatory remarks, uttered with reckless disregard for the violence they might incite against judges, tell me all I need to know about how far out on the fringe these zealots reside.
Only extremists would slobber so rabidly over the prospect of undoing 200 years of Senate tradition. True conservatives wouldn't rush so hastily to change the rules of the game in that chamber.
Of course, neo-cons are not true conservatives. They never have been, and they never will be. They are radical activists pushing an extreme agenda that promotes an unholy mixture of theocracy and plutocracy, perhaps more accurately defined as loot-ocracy.
Ironically, Frist and company claim filibusters are unconstitutional in regard to judicial nominations but are hunky-dory when it comes to legislative issues.
A filibuster is a filibuster. Either it's good, or it's bad. Frist's hypocritical argument to the contrary just provides further proof that he and his fellow neo-cons aren't real conservatives because real conservatives don't advocate situational ethics.
Mainstream religious groups such as the National Council of Churches have denounced the exploitation of "faith" in today's Injustice Sunday theatrics. And traditional conservatives such as syndicated columnist George Will and former senator and GOP presidential candidate Bob Dole reject Frist's "nuclear option" of changing Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster in regard to judicial nominations.
"Think down the road," Dole has urged his fellow Republicans. And they should, because the political pendulum stays in constant motion.
Someday, the pendulum will swing back toward the Democrats, giving them control of the White House and Senate. When that day comes, Republicans will be powerless to stop a Democratic president from packing the courts with liberal judges if they follow Frist's lead now.
But one defining trait of the political and religious extremists who lead the radical right is an arrogance so strong that it does not allow for the possibility that their current reign will ever end. It is this arrogance that leads them to ignore negative poll numbers and continue their quest to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominations so that Dubya will be free to do his extreme makeover of the federal judiciary.
Thus, we in Kentucky get the "privilege" of hosting Injustice Sunday, with its assault on truth, mainstream Christianity and the concept of a fair and impartial system of justice.
Better if we had been spared that dubious honor.
15 Comments:
I have no problem with filibusters.
I have a problem with democrats being losers. I want them to be productive again. In the sixties some democrats tried to filibuster so the civil rights legislation would not pass. The party began to shrink soon after.
Tom Daschle thought obstruction was the way to go. He is voted out of office like so many other democrats.
Now all that is left for democrats is to filibuster and obstruct. I can see why the leadership thinks it is a good idea but it hasn't helped in the past and I am afraid it will just shrink the party some more.
Dems aren't going to see the white house, become a majority in the congress or regain party health until a new direction is adopted.
Please give us something new.
You are correct in that the party shrank a bit after the attempt to filibuster the Civil Rights Legislation. The main shrinkage came, however, because many of those that were trying the filibuster bolted the party and became Republicans.
Their leaving the Democrats to become Republicans increased the average IQ of both parties.
You have made a very funny statement. Should it matter that it is not really true? Should it concern us that it is just more of the same old stuff that has trapped dems and kept them from making headway in the electoral process. I fear that dems are trapped by this stuff and we are not getting anywhere.
This is the truth about the vote:
The dems in the 60's did not bolt for the republicans after passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Richard Russell, Mendell Rivers, Bill Clinton's mentor William Fulbright, Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings and Al Gore Sr. remained Democrats till their dying day.
Most of the Dixiecrats did not become Republicans. They created the Dixiecrats and then, when the civil rights movement succeeded, they returned to the Democratic fold. It was not till much later, with a new, younger breed of Southerner and the thousands of Northerners moving into the South, that Republicans began to make gains.
I’m glad you thought my statement was humorous. However, you question it’s veracity. Strom Thurmond switched to your party in 1964. Richard Shelby switched. Zell Miller switched…..oh, no, wait. He didn’t switch. He just campaigned for the freakin’ Republican nominee for President! He should have shown some integrity and just switched.
I posted an article addressing a dasterdly usurpation of churches by a decrepid representitive of your party in order to end the filibuster in the Senate in 2005. In order to apparently defend this aberation, you cite 1960’s Civil Rights debates and mix in a 1948 party.
Oh well.
What do you call obstucting, anyway? The Democrats have helped confirm over 200 of Dubya’s appointees, while objecting to 10.
Do you honestly think that’s obstruction?
Don’t you think it is more of an obstruction for the Bush Regime to try to force those 10 into the mix after the cooperation by the Democrats regarding the previous 200?
Just what is obstructing in Republican world?
I don't think there is anything wrong with obstruction. I just think the tactic has proven to be for losers.
Is this what dems have to offer?
I'll type slower for you. I didn't ask "What's wrong with obstruction?"
I asked, "What do you consider obstruction?"
The Dems have help the Bush Regime with over 200 judges while objecting to only 10. Do you really think that a 95% cooperation rate is "obstruction"?
I am disappointed how people in the democratic party treat those that are free thinking and come up with answers that are different then the super leftist in the party. Everytime someone leaves the plantation the democrat leadership has to destroy them. This is the crazy stuff and leadership that has turned us into a minority party.
You mentioned and attacked Zell Miller. He and his family have been lifelong dems and his politics are a lot closer to FDR, John Kennedy, and Scoop Jackson's then most of the democratic politicians today.
It seems that the leaders of the democratic party are taking us down a road that will never be recovered. Zell Miller tried to point that out. Now they demonize him. Maybe he is a voice in the wilderness trying to bring us back to sanity.
That must be very scary for the current leadership. We must destoy him or we might lose our power!
We must destoy him or we might lose our power!
While you avoid answering the question about what you consider obstuction, you quote Short-timer Tom DeLay and Bush Regime Strategist Karl Rove.
Hey! Heres another of Bush Regime Judge confirmed by those horrible obstrutionist Democrats:
Obstruction Schmuction!
Obstruction is when you get judges nominated who have made thousands of decisions and very few have been overturned, they are respected in their fields and by all accounts solid citizens getting demonized because the minority party doesn't like their ideas. So they must be destroyed.
It is obstruction when these judges would most likely get voted into the positions by a large margin, which would include many democrating senators, if a vote was allowed by the democrats.
I have been reading the reasons for these judges being held up and it is not because they are not qualified, it is because they might not rule the way the democrats want them too.
By the way, the judge you brought up earlier that was filibustered in the 60's and not allowed to become chief justice would most likely not gotten a majority of the senate to vote for him anyway. Many democrats wouldn't have voted for him either. It was bi-partisian that he didn't have the goods to be chief justice. Their concerns about him where confirmed when a few years later he resigned as a judge in disgrace for finacial impropriety.
That filibuster wasn't because of the way he would rule, he just wasn't the right man for the job.
So when your Republicans block a Democrat President's nominee, it's for the right reasons because he's "not the right man for the job". But, when my Democrats give 95% (204) of the the Resident's nominees a pass and hold up 10 it's because they are "obstructionists" ant they're all good people. Hmmmmm. Interesting duplicity, wouldn't you say?
BTW, your contention that "they don't like their ideas" is pretty darn close to the mark, all right. That's what the minority party does: pick their battles where they can. This is one place they can.... and should.
Your Republicans need to remember this lesson. You'll be in the minority soon enough due to their overreaching zealotous leadership.
That man was not supported by a large group of democrats along with republicans. Together they felt he was not the right man to be the chief justice. His future conduct proved that these democrats were right to partner with republicans in forcing LBJ to remove his name for consideration.
Also, there are no trends to support the idea that the republicans will be in the minority for many years to come.
Even if people didn't support the republicans positions they do not feel the democrats deserve another shot at the majority. Our leadership has given them nothing to rally around except anger, frustration, conspiracy theories and obstruction.
Maybe if we moved away from the same old play book and came up with some new ideas we might get the publics consideration again.
I'll agree that the Dems are using an old playbook. Your Republicans have changed the book. The old playbook said, "When one side is vigorously opposed to a nomination, withdraw it, regroup, maybe even talk to them, and then send up someone that can be confirmed."
Your hero, on the other hand is throwing a tizzy in an attempt to appease his Wrong Wing base.
204 out of 214 doesn't seem capitulating enough for your side. The public can see through your facade, however. The polls keep going lower and lower and lower. Between DeLay, Bush, Frist, Gannon/Guckert, "Go Fuck Yourself Cheney, The Social Security fiasco, Any Tax-Cut For My Buddies in a Storm, do you think my side will have to break a sweat?
Yeah, as long as your side controls the Diebolt voting machine, my side better sweat.
Thanks for the conversation.
"Yeah, as long as your side controls the Diebolt voting machine, my side better sweat."
So we have come full circle back to conspiracy theories. I guess we have established this is all the democratic leadership is offering. I believe we can do better.
Those damned obstructionist Democrats just confirmed another Dubya appointed judge:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00111
What is that? 206? Geez, what were they thinking?
The link as I intended to post it:
Those Damned Obstructionists!
Post a Comment
<< Home