You know, if you must
put up a VANITY, then
think about good pics!
Posted on 05/21/2005 7:11:41 AM PDT by contemplator
I am constantly amazed at the evolution of debates. There is a definite and identifiable pattern of fighting battles using ‘proxy’ arguments. The current Filibuster situation is an example of an argument being fought by proxy. The argument here really has nothing to do with Senate traditions and constitutional rules, the 500 lb. gorilla in the middle of the room which no one wants to recognize is named Abortion.
Certain issues are simply to hot to handle, and neither side wants to approach them directly. What each side tends to do is hold their position in abeyance until they are in the majority and can ensure enough support for their side without having to fight a bloody war of words and posturing. In the case of abortion, this means having enough members of the judiciary in particular the Supreme Court to ensure a legal victory for your side. During the process of filling the benches with people who support your side, your opponents will do everything possible to keep you from achieving your goal. This usually means stall tactics, objection over procedures and objections about traditions and the like.
I have heard the Senate described as the ‘greates deliberative body’ on the planet. This may be true, but it surely is a shame that the real motives behind these deliberations have to be shrouded in so much diversion that a fight over abortion is played out as a “filibuster crisis” using “nuclear options”, and “constitutional options” and so on.
This is nothing new in American politcs. This evolution of debates turning them into something which is dressed in completely different clothes has been going on since the very beginnings of this country. I am sure I will catch a lot of flack for this next assetion, but the Civil War is another example of this. What began as a long struggle to obtain a majority led to “Slave States” and “Free States”. This wrangling went on for many years and neither side was able to to achieve a clear vistory. After a while, the debate morphed into one of “State’s Rights” and the old arguments about where the line between State’s authority ended and Federal authority begins. Even today there are many many people who deny that Slavery was the overriding issue in that conflict and point to another that wolf in sheeps clothing, “State’s Rights”.
In the case of Abortion, this very same path has been traveled where State’s who are attempting to control this issue within their borders challenge the Federal Government’s authority and wave high the State’s Right’s banner.
I don’t mind debating the issues, let’s just begin correctly identifying the issue we are debating instead of shrouding it.
Donning my Flame Proof Suit.
This Senate warfare is not only about abortion, it is about anything with a conservative slant. The liberals cannot stand the thought of their past 50 years of court decisions being overturned and changed for at least the NEXT 50 years.
Conservative (read: Strict Constitutionalist) judges would actually serve as the final nail in the liberal coffin.
Word is that Lindsey Graham may be the linchpin in a bad deal being cooked up on judges. Lindsey, can you hear me? If there is some back room deal with your name on it back stabbing the president's judicial nominees, I for one will send a $100 check to your opponent in your next primary. Every judge, and the American people, deserves an up or down vote. Those wishing to contact Senator Graham can send him a check payable to his "next election opponent". His Address is 290 Russell Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20510-4001.
Attempting to reach a congressman when you are not one of his constituents is a frustrating exercise (there ought to be a law). Never mind that how he or she votes will affect you, but money talks and a senator will listen when bucks are involved. So send him a check.
Great idea. I'll do just that. I think a barrage of checks made out to his next opponent might get the message through to him.
It's going to be hard to get it there by Tuesday, though, which is when the rubber meets the road.
I see, I should have used my own diversionary tactics, thanks for the tip :) That is a nice looking sheep.
That's what democrats do. But if Roe is overturned, there will be a bloody battle in all 50 states that will force a complete readjustment in both parties of positions of politicians on the abortion issue. Democrats want the debate out of the legislature. Republicans want it in the legislature. That's where bloody wars of words occur.
The Democratic Party has instituted socialism in America since FDR with the collusion of liberal justices they have appointed. As most of the Republican Presidents have been liberals, they too have played the game. (Bush 1 did give us Thomas, for which Conservatives are grateful.) In the last 20 years the sense of entitlement of these judges has grown to the point they now have no qualms about overtruning centuries old traditions based on personal and in-group opinion.
If actual Constitutionalists were appointed would not much of the modern socialist mechanism (forced through by FDR over the objections of the sitting supreme court via threats and retirements) be found illegal. Is Social Security actually a legal program that lies within the delegated powers of the Federal Government to run? What about fighting AIDS in Africa?
We don't know if we can actually find judges who can read the simple text and interpret it without the glossy haze of the liberal law school indoctrinations they have recieved, but if such judges are found and appointed much more is at risk for the liberal hegemony than just abortion.
Yes, it's a proxy.
However, I think this debate is not quite as single-issue driven as that: the fact is, NO COURT is going to undo Roe v. Wade, and anyone who think's that's likely is living in fantasyland. What courts MIGHT do is to chip away at parental consent restrictions, federal funding, and so on.
I think an equally powerful issue---one that we can still head off---is "gay marriage," and I think THAT is what this battle is really about. The two really are tied together, especially if one takes the "states rights" view that either/both should be purely state policy. So the issue then would become "comity," and I think this is the battle the courts will fight over---whether Massachusetts' marriages are de facto legal in other states that expressly prohibit them.
You are absolutely right about this being about much more than abortion. For a large portion of American's; socialist programs, and liberal slanted laws are not on their radar screens. Abortion and gay marriage are however.
The judges currently up for nomination and around whom this dance is being played out have exceptionally strong opinions regarding conservative issues and abortion in particular. This is what has caused the Democrats to circle the wagons and make their stand at this point in time. The smell of change is in the air and this is the one area where they cannot afford to lose control. From their standpoint, if they can hold out until 2006 they have a chance of staving off the changes which are in the offing.
I rather appreciate an idea from Jefferson (in Gay Parie)to Madison(Dec.20,1787)"P.S. The instability of our laws is really an imense evil. I think it would be well to provide in our constitutions that there shall always be a
twelve month between the ingrossing a bill & passing it: that it should then be offered to its passage without changing a word:and that if circumastances should be thought
to require a speedier passage, it should take two thirds of both houses instead of a bare majority."IMO they would do well to do away with the silly filibuster rule alltogether
as the Dems wanted to do in 95? If some stuffed suit is not
capable of voting up or down on an issue without these games he /she/it is too stupid to be in public service.
Abortion is the symptom, not the cause.
It was the obtuse "discovery" of a "right to privacy" in the Constitution by the rogue Burger Court which alerted the public to the real problem - - liberal activist judges who rule based on the chic political correctness of the day - - like a bloody stool alerts a person to a colon problem.
Addressing the problem is something which is long overdue.
WAY long overdue. And with the GOP in charge, there is an historic opportunity to do something NOW to save this country. The opportunity MUST NOT be squandered. It is now or never, because this opportunity may never come again.
Go nuclear.
Why Abortion?short answer the Democrats have made that moral issue lynch pin /litmus test. They will Not support any Judge who ever wrote (even in Law School debate) anything to suggest they think Roe v.Wade/Doe v.Bolton were
invalid decisions. As Abortion is generally an issue with
obedient Christians it serves as an end run around the
NO religious test clause -If the Dems can stop a Judge over abortionthey can continue to legislate from the Judiciary and soon we will be as Sodom-and as Gomorrah.
But as a revovering decieved Democrat i admit my prejudices
But I've seen a precious few Democratic politicians who I
could call obedient Christians.
I agree, abortion is the symptom most Americans recognize though. As effective as it is, surely you could have found a better analogy than a 'bloody stool' couldn't you? It's almost lunch time.
...and if 'nuclear' fails?
Pack it up, the country is over.
I fear you are right. The GOP will be toast with their constituents and the dems (Hillary) will definitely win.
You aced it kid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.