« Congratulations! You may already be a winner! | Main | Score One For The Good Guys »

April 07, 2005

Comments

“Justice Kennedy should be impeached for taking such a position, along with O'Connor, Ginsberg, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens, who have recently made similar statements.” JAMES DOBSON, http://www.focusaction.org/articles/A0000066.cfm

"mass impeachment" sounds like they're gonna end up at the soccer stadium....

I just got a request from "Move On" to contact Sen. Specter to oppose the nuclear option. "Move On" must be targeting all PA members to try and put pressure on Specter to do what is right. Considering that the Repubs just do not have the majority in the Congress and in the nation to legally and properly overcome negatives and precedents to get their extreme wishes, they now want to break the golden piggy bank , so to speak, to get their fanatical ideas passed. That can only lead to true problems later in such a closely divided nation! Do it the right way or don't do it should be the new mantra!

Evidently, "Move on" feels the choice on whether to proceed with the nuclear option mistake or back off will eventually come down to Specter's vote!!

I'll be interested to see what Specter does. I'm inclined to believe he'd be very wary of the nuclear option, but I also understand he's hired Dimple Gupta, co-author of the article I wrote about most extensively in Part III of the "Notes on the Nuclear Option" series.

Gupta and co-author Martin Gold spend a considerable amount of time constructing the constitutional and procedural framework in which they believe the nuclear option would be permissible, but their historical sources almost always insist that this framework exists only at the beginning of a new Congress.

I'd be very curious to know how Gupta views Frist's insistance that he can unilaterally turn back the clock and pretend it's the beginning of a new Congress in order to make this work mid-session.

I am for mass impeachment also but mass imepachment of the likes of DeLay, Coburn and company.

Gupta and co-author Martin Gold spend a considerable amount of time constructing the constitutional and procedural framework in which they believe the nuclear option would be permissible, but their historical sources almost always insist that this framework exists only at the beginning of a new Congress.

I am more in favor of just the political-practical point that you should not be taking the country down a pathway considered a fringe pathway if you are not a real significant majority, like a supermajority. That is the significance of the filibuster; namely that it prevents a winner take all mentality when the country is so closely divided. I think most people understand this and would agree with it!

From a practical standpoint, when a supermajority (60%) of the Senate exists, then the path followed may not lead to great stress/turmoil later because most people would likely agree with that path. However, when the country is divided 50-50 as it is now, any governing body should be very careful and almost neutral in its lawmaking because the other side is very/equally powerful and is likely to have considerable clout against the fringe activity. Why do something when it will lead to political turmoil at best and outright hostility at worse. Either way, in a divided country, any fringe act will likely be overturned at the next election cycle if the 50-50 divide stays the same.

These people have been arond for quite some time, and may well represent the leading edge of the theocratic movement that has always held the far edge of Republican politics. The group that is holding forth here is best identified by the Christian Reconstructionist movement that came into vogue 50 years ago behind R. J. Rushdoony, an exxtreme Calvinist. Now, we find his desciples in the persons of his son, Mark Rushdoony, Gary North, and Gary DeMar.

As it relates to the JCCCR, however, the driving force is Herbert Titus, the former Dean of Regent Law School, and an absolute theologic ideologue. His is the the concept that both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are, is his ow words, "Christian documents."

This a very extreme bunch, and the fact that htey are now so very well out in the open should tell us that they believe themselves to have at least in some measure to have arrived. They are big, bold, and in our faces. Thus, we ought to let them have their say as loudly and stridently as possible to show just what fools they are. It's the political equivalent of the the draw play. Let them come so far and then lob one over their heads. It won't take long to see this happen. Give them a few more months of spewing their drivel and they'll believe that they have won converts to the cause. Then is when we show them for the extemists that they are.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad