Uhh, you shouldn’t be offended. Not only do you and the leaders of your religion have a voice to the President, the more extreme factions of your religion have a direct telephone line, satellite feed, and 24/7 video conferencing availability.

This whole fillibuster thing was about the extreme christian right forcing ‘their’ politicians to vote on their agenda.

So I guess I should have clarified what I meant by the ‘christian right’. I meant the ‘neo-cons’, the evagelicals, and for the most part, the rest of the 21st century puritans in our country. If you’re part of those influential groups and somehow feel left out of your parties political process, it’s I who am offended.

I don’t say that : Dean shouldn’t pander to the Atheist left” - sounds ridiculous doesn’t it?

Well you could say that, but it’s be a terrible analogy to the christian right. Last time I checked, this last election was about ‘values voters’ a.k.a. evangelical christians, who came out in record numbers to vote for the GOP. Many members, the President included, acknowledge the fact that they owe the religous right a great deal of debt for getting them elected.

And the religous right knows that… So the ‘atheist left’ is a bad analogy because there’s no such thing that wields any sort of political power, especially in comparison with the ‘christian right’.

Secondly, Bush should be able to nominate whomever he wants. There is a new phenomenon within the Senate of really pushing back judicial nominees. We saw a little bit of it with Clinton, but not to this level.

I didn’t say he shouldn’t be able to nominate whoever he wants, I said it’s too bad he’s going to bow down to pressure from the christian right and appoint an extreme conservative to the Supreme Court.

I said that because a small percentage of the population who we’ll call ‘evangelicals’ are pushing the President to put someone on the bench who won’t just be conservative, they’ll be medieval. I think the question people should be asking is why does the President think he should be able to appoint someone to the highest court in the land who represents the values of 10-15% of the people they’ll be deciding cases for? Just like I wouldn’t agree with an extreme liberal judge, I don’t agree with an extreme conservative one.

The President however, only sees things in a ‘black or white’, ‘with us or against us’, ‘MY GOD vs. yours’ mentality, which is a serious flaw for not only a President, but for any rational human being.

If only our politicians of today were as knowledgeable and knew their purpose of representation as Washington, Hamilton, Jay, Madison, Jefferson, et al.

That said, we’re going to go through this whole thing again if Bush decides to bow down to pressure from the christian right and appoint an extreme conservative to the Supreme Court.

First of all, as a Christian, I’m offended by your statement that I shouldn’t have a voice to the President. After all, religion is about morals and values, so if you’re an atheist, you’re religious too. It’s just that your religion doesn’t have a god. I don’t say that :Dean shouldn’t pander to the Atheist left” - sounds ridiculous doesn’t it? I could go on and on about liberal hypocracy with Christians as opposed to every other religion, but let’s save that argument for another post.

Secondly, Bush should be able to nominate whomever he wants. There is a new phenomenon within the Senate of really pushing back judicial nominees. We saw a little bit of it with Clinton, but not to this level. It’s somewhat disturbing.

Thirdly, the fact that we are going to have to go through this again is reason enough to not like the compromise. What did it gain anybody, specifically the American people?

Right on, Yeah Boy. Consider the following…

“I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissention, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils, and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country, are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, IT SHOULD CONSUME.” - George Washington

Both sides seem so surprised by the winning/losing in part because it’s been so long since there’s been any sort of real compromise, and the more extreme wings of both parties see any sort of compromise as ‘losing’. Although I’m not entirely pleased with the compromise that was reached, I’m happy some of the more moderate members of the Senate prevailed.

That said, we’re going to go through this whole thing again if Bush decides to bow down to pressure from the christian right and appoint an extreme conservative to the Supreme Court.

To me, this whole filibuster debacle wasn’t about Dems winning or Repubs winning, it was about “minority” party rights and the right/ability for a president to nominate judges. To the politicians, it was about the Dems standing up to the Repubs and trying to win or something like that. Frist and Dean’s comments were friggin’ ridiculous.

Does anybody else have a problem with this?

I’m not clairvoyant, but what I suspect Frist is going to do is simply exploit the parliamentary rules the Senate runs under, not change the rules. It’s a basic seven-step process. Follow:

1) Nomination brought to Senate floor.

2) Debate/filibuster ensues.

3) Majority leader rises for a point of order. Points out to the chair of the meeting (and we all know who that is) that the discussion is not fruitful and is not moving the nomination ahead and so should be ended.

4) By Senate rules, the chair has the right to rule on the point of order or refer the point to the entire Senate for discussion/determination. Since we know who the chair is, we know he’ll choose to make the ruling himself and what the ruling will be.

5) This decision will be appealed. Any ruling the chair makes can be appealed, and the appeal will be heard by the entire body.

6) Someone, perhaps the majority leader, perhaps someone else, will then make a motion to table the appeal. According to the Senate’s rules, motions to table are not open to debate, they must simply be voted on with a straight up/down, yes/no, vote. We also can confidently predict the result of that vote.

7) With the appeal tabled, debate/filibuster ends and the vote will commence.

This scenario requires no rule change. It simply uses the existing rules of operation of the Senate, and exploits a loophole in them that has existed for quite some time (at least 25 years, which is how long ago it was last used) and has been used multiple times in the past (at least twice, and I suspect four times).

The history and application of the filibuster is an interesting subject. Originally the Senate didn’t permit it, but it came into being around 1806(? my memory could be wrong, but it was somewhere near then) as a side-effect of another rule change. Since the Senate was created to protect the rights of the minority, they decided to keep it around, though modifying it several times (the last rule change to it was in 1975, when the cloture requirement was lowered from 2/3 to 3/5 of the Senators present).