Posted on 05/23/2005 7:38:21 PM PDT by disraeligears
If Kos is happy it's because he hasn't figured out what just happened--and neither have a lot of the posters here.(If the Rep signers are double crossed they will vote for the rules change and they might not have otherwise.)
Well, that's what they said on abc news(yeah I know) but all the democrats sound happy and Frist sounds sad so... I think they caved and it's really going to hurt them.
What's the deal with Pryor? That clown is the first one I would have thrown overboard, yet he was among the three "protected" nominees. I don't get it....
Why is Pryor a clown?
He stabbed his "old friend" Judge Roy Moore in the back as he sided with the ACLU and every athiest scumbag in the country to force Moore to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the courthouse.
Simple. The agreement is in two parts. Part I addresses the three, Owen,Brown and Pryor, to be given up-down votes.
Part II talks about "future nominations" and the weasel-word terms "extrordinary circumstances" and "discretion" appear there.
So I see a way the Dem's can say that anything agreed to in Part I has no bearing on "future nominations".
And our "best moderate minds" agreed to this charade?!
No, bring up for voice vote, Owens, then Brown, then Pryor, THEN Saad.
If you have read Roy Moore's book, you may see why Pryor had to rule against him.
Moore practically begged to be slapped down. Moore, as an agent of the government, in charge of a building by virtue of his position in the government, installed a monument to a religion. And when asked why, he said it was because the state had a right to credit the God of the Bible for our laws.
While I believe the 10 commandments, as a religious document, should be allowed in public places, I also believe that a public figure cannot use the power of his public office to advance the tenets of one religion over others.
It is a fine line -- Moore could have used the argument that the bible, and even christianity, was the foundation for our law. But he crossed the line when he said that he had the right as a public official to proclaim that the Christian God was the one true God (As truthful as that may be, it is not a stretch to say that proclaiming a winner in the religious sweepstakes is "establishing religion".)
Much of what Moore wrote in his book was thought-provoking, and even courageous. But sometimes the warrior you pick is really just looking for a fight.
That was MY PERSONAL OPINION on the subject. I allow that others have a different opinion, and that opinions in this matter are strongly held. I'm not going to suggest that my opinion has more weight than someone else's, nor do I want to get into a debate over it, although certainly everybody has a right to castigate my position.
I am a strong supporter of religion in public, but I was in fact somewhat turned off by Judge Moore's position on the issue. That's all I'm saying.
Because of my views on the subject, I don't hold Pryor at fault for his part in the affair.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
I have not read the Judge's book, so I will defer to your stronger knowledge of the matter. I suppose my support for Moore may have been more of a "my enemy's enemy is my friend" thing than anything else. I HATE the ACLU, and if Moore was their enemy, then Moore was my friend.
Regards,
LH
I would say that today is the day the Republicans lost the Senate except for the now obvious fact that the Republicans never even held the Senate in the first place.
Well they sure as hell never acted like it. They can still use the nuclear option if the dums fillibuster, they just put it off. It does not look good for their testicular fortitude.
Interesting. Do you think Moore is a "Christian Reconstructionist?" Of course, the leftist secularists are fond of social engineering but there are some on the other side who I think go too far in the belief that a "Christian" government will bring about utopia.
No, I think they need to hold Brown in reserve. Make them filibuster Saad or Myers....then bring up Brown. If they have already filibustered after the compromise, then the Dem base will demand that they filibuster Brown....and that breaks the compromise.
I don't think so. If that were the case, the Dems would have stopped the filibuster weeks ago and let them come to a vote. The only reason for the filibuster in the first place was to avoid having a vote the Dems knew they would lose. I think there will even be a few Democrats voting for Brown and Owen as they've been given a fig leaf of sorts with this compromise.
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.