Well, I started off agreeing with groups like PfAW, back when they were protesting the nation's obsession with Clinton's sex partners - frankly, it's between him & his wife. Hilary's a big girl; let her deal with it.

More & more recently I think they're just morons, though. In this case, despite Pryor's conservative religious views (I'm Pagan, and I get worried when Christianity is combined with politics), he was the one who ultimately did *NOT* support ex-Judge Moore once it was determined that Moore violated the law. Frankly, a judge's job is to uphold the law - and that's what Pryor did. I think he's shown he can put aside his personal views if the law is clear.

The Democrats are hardly trying anything new; filibustering is almost as old as the Senate itself. It's just as constitutional as Bush's power to appoint judges is.

To me, this is not a big deal. Oooh, a group that hates Bush criticized his move as wrong and bad and evil. Big surprise there. It's more of the usual hot air from both sides.

Um, filibustering isn't in the consitution (though it is certainly not unconstitutional - the senate has the right to make their own rules of debate); its an internal senate debate rule. My problem with its use in this case is that it is being use to circumvent a constitutional power of the president; namely, to appoint federal judges ("subject to advice and consent" which for the past 200+ years has been interpreted as requiring a majority of the senate to approve of the judges. In the case of at least 4 judges that I know of, a minority of the senate has held up the consideration of candidates (and thus forced at least 4 judgeships to remain open). President Bush is using a legitimate tactic with much precedent to fill these judgeships; his opponents are using an entirely new tactic that, in effect, severaly expands the power of minority-party senators to dictate to the president. A comparable tactic was used by President FD Roosevelt in the '30s, when he attempted to "pack" the Supreme Court - a tactic that was stopped by the Senate.

link to article:

Democrats have used the filibuster only against a half-dozen out of 175 Bush nominees; by comparison, GOP senators blocked more than sixty of Bill Clinton's nominees--most by never giving them a hearing or a vote.

I didn't say it was in the Constitution; I said it was constitutional, which is synonymous with not unconstitutional.

Both tactics are completely valid; if the Senate's own rules prevent it from "consenting," then that's the Senate's fault as a whole, not the Democrats'.

I guess my problem with this (and I have a problem with this both ways, mind) is that is yet another step towards a government of men, not laws. The entire exercise has been one of pushing the limits of acceptable tactics; one where certain elements on each side of the conflict have decided it is more important to break the system than to work within it. We saw this in teh government shutdowns of clinton's era, and we see it now in the nomination face-off. Politics in the federal government are tending towards utter destruction of the enemy in any way possible - politcally and personally. It is not enough that your opponent is wrong, but he must be seen as a threat to the Republic. Anyone who holds his positions are a threat to the American Way. Oh, and he probably engages in improper sex or business practices (depending on political orientation) in his private life too.

The biggest problem I have with this is that all too often, the opponent is trying to do what he thinks is right, as well; and there seems to be no recognition of this.

I know this is, in large part, because of playing to the base; but I can't help wishing that our elected officials took their offices more seriously, and tried to not be so crass. One of the reasons I prefer the current president to any of the still-active challengers, is that he (generally; and I do have some issues with some of the things he says!) says what he means and means what he says. If lieberman had stayed in and become a viable candidate, I would have seriously looked at him - but I think that both Kerry and Edwards have drunk of the far-left kool-aid. Sadly for me, there's enough support out there for them that I think it is going to be a close election. And another close election won't help matters on either side.

As an aside, does anyone else think it will be a bad idea to allow a trial lawyer to select federal judges?

I didn't say it was in the Constitution; I said it was constitutional, which is synonymous with not unconstitutional.

Just a little note, there are two ways to make something either constitutional or unconstitutional, if it's listed in the constitution expressly allowing or forbiding something, and that includes amendments, or if the courts have ruled it constitutional or unconstitutional. Therefore filibustering is, as yet, neither constitutional nor unconstitutional.

Cheers

As an aside, does anyone else think it will be a bad idea to allow a trial lawyer to select federal judges?

As a former trial lawyer I can honestly say no, I don't think it's a bad idea. The reason is, and this will boggle y'alls mind is, Trial Lawyers serve both sides, as prosecution and defense. Can you imagine a group of lawyers agreeing on anything? If you can you've seriously misunderstood how lawyers work.

Cheers

Politics in the federal government are tending towards utter destruction of the enemy in any way possible - politcally and personally.

Badmouthing one's political opponents is thousands of years old. Do you think the Roman Senate was strictly cool-headed business all the time?

Personally, I find your support of Bush ironic in light of this, since he and his henchmen in the Cabinet have gone to great lengths to divide the country, and the world, into "friends and allies" and "anti-American terrorism-lovers." If you don't support the USA PATRIOT Act, it's because you support terrorism and hate America. If you don't agree wholeheartedly with the dubious logic of an invasion of Iraq, it's because you're an enemy of freedom. War is peace; freedom is slavery; ignorance is strength.