1 I have a question.

What would constitute a "deal" to you? A rubberstamp on every right-wing nut Bush tries to shove into a position?

As it stands, we now have William "the government belongs in the bedroom of every citizen" Pryor on his way to being a judge with Priscilla "I have never in my life ruled against a corporation" Owens already there.

That's a huge victory for the GOP and a huge defeat for the United States of America. The Dems got NOTHING in return at all, yet you still complain. That's outrageous. A two party system demands compromise yet, not being able to compromise, the Dems outright GIVE the GOP part fo what they want yet the GOP has the audactiy to complain because they don't get EVERYTHING they want.

2 A simple up or down vote -- that is all we ever asked for.

And sorry you feel the need to distort the records of two fine legal minds because they happen to oppose your view of the world.

By the way -- what is your position on the Michigan nominees who are being filibustered for the simple reason that a Senator's nose is out of joint because his wife's cousin's something or other wasn't confirmed after being nominated at the tail end of the Clinton presidency. There is no question of fitness -- just personal spite.

3 dolphin: Here's an idea -- want what you wish to see in government? Win elections, pal.

4 Hube: Here's an idea -- let's let the government function the way it's supposed to. Winning Walden O'Dell's vote doesn't give the GOP a license to usurp absolute power. This is SUPPOSED to be a representative democracy. Why is 5.1% of the population the only people being represented??

5 So holding a vote in the Senate is now a usurpation of power?

And 5.1 percent -- isn't that at least double the percentage of homosexuals in the US population? Why should they get to overrule the results of elections?

6 Yes, if the vote changes the way the Senate has functioned for 200 years and establishes absolute power to one party and removed representation from half the country I'd say that is a usurpation of power. What if the senate voted to declare George Bush king? Would you claim there was no usurpation of power going on (of course you would, you'd be there campaigning in favor of it).

You know it's an actual Aryan Nation tatic to bring up a minority group that it's "socially acceptable" to hate when trying to win others over to your cause. Kinda says alot right there.

That said, I don't think any minority should overrule the rsults of an election. What particular election are you accusing gay people of trying to overrule, the presidential election, a certain senate election, a house election, a local election?

I believe you were probably falling back on your GOP talking points which apparently expressly state that anytime you can't win an argument you try to divide the nation with talk of marriage eqaulity. Nobody is "elected" in such a vote, so calling it an election doesn't really make much sense. That said, voting on human rights is such an atrocity that I don't even understand how it came about. Imagine the outrage if I suggests that we should vote on whether or not evangelical christians should be considered human in the eyes of the government. Of course I'd never DARE suggest such a thing because it's my belief that human rights should be above the arbitrary and ever changing popular opinion.

7 If said proposal were made in the form of a Constitutional Amendment, I would campaign against it. If said proposal were made in the form of a statute, I would join the suit to strike it down as a violation of the Constitution.

And it is a typical leftist talking point to associate anyone who supports policies they oppose with the Nazis, Fascists, Klan, or Aryan Nations.

And refusing to change the nature of a social institution to support the whims of the minority against the beliefs and desires of the minority is not a human rights violation. Your asserting that it is does not make it so.

8 Interesting. You CLAIM you'd be against placing bush as king yet you'd happily remove half of the legislators of the country leaving ONLY those who will rubberstamp every word out of Bush's mouth. That my friend IS establishing Bush as a king.

It's a typical right wing tatic to utilize bonafide aryan nation tatics (as reported by a former aryan nation recuiter) then write it off just "because." Why not call an apple an apple? If your tatics were so different you could actually explain how instead of just saying "becuase." Are you or are you not attacking a group of people in order to divde people and stir up hatred? The answer is crystal clear.

Ok, well you can disagree with me and show your gross ignorance of US law but the Supreme Court precedent agrees with me on this one. The FACT is that denying a population a human right IS denying their humanity. There's no room for argument on that at all. It's inherent in the definition of the word.

9 Uh, where did I advocate removing legislators from any legislative body.

Now i did advocate kicking some out of the GOP caucus, but that is hardly the same thing.

You might want to start reading MUCH MORE CLOSELY, or ask your doctor to prescribe you some honesty pills.

Actually, since marrige to a person of the same sex is NOT a human right, there is no violation of human rights in not permitting it. And since the Supreme Court has not ruled that it is -- just a couple of runaway renegade judges substituting their own views for millenia of Western tradition -- maybe you need that prescription for honesty pills filled regardless.

10 Honesty pills??? What are you, four?

Anyways, the Supreme Court DID rule that marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man"

Perhaps if you'd take a break from coming on other people's property and making demands about how they operate thier personal property and actuall crack a history book you'd know that.

11 I guess you are as unfamiliar with the concept of sarcasm as you are with the concept of honesty.

And I didn't make a demand -- I simply pointed out that your entire argument was flawed, had been demolished, and therefore meritted retraction. I recognize you are not honest enough to make one.

The proof of that was your deletion of the posts which constituted the systematic destruction of your argument.

12 Oh, and regarding your point about marriage -- yes, marriage has been labeled as such by the Supreme Court.

However, the Supreme Court has never accepted any other view of marriage besides that it is the monogamous union of one man and one woman.

You, of course, leave that out.

And as you well know, I have degrees in history and political science (a masters degree, in fact) from a major midwestern state university, as well as graduate level work in theology. I also teach both history and political science.

What are your credentials, dolphin?

I didn't think so.

13 How dare you twist the article around by not quoting every letter of it. Oh well, I guess it's just another case of an attack by The Dishonest And Intellectually Deficient Right.

14 OK - Dolphin and RWR - I don't think that marriage should be recognized in any way, shape, or form by the government. It's none of their business whether or not I'm married and I'd support an Amendment saying just that. Keep marriage between the couple and their clergyman (clergy...uhh...woman?).

Furthermore Dolphin, what he did was represent the core and true aspect of the article. What you did (that he complained about) was eliminate aspects of his post that specifically pointed out that what your 'fear' was, was not valid in the context of his post.

Now, on to the meat of the matter:

A FILIBUSTER ON JUDICIAL NOMINEES IS NOT A MATTER OF CONSTITUTIONALITY!

This is a simple matter of a Senate *rule*.

What I'd do to change this is simple: I'd make it so THEY ACTUALLY HAVE TO FILIBUSTER! Right now, these geniuses don't have to stand there and read from recipe books and phone books to filibuster something, they just say they will and that's good enough. That's foolishness! If you want to filibuster, that's fine...BUT GIVE IT TEETH! MAKE IT HARD TO DO!

I may dislike Republicans, but I *LOATHE* most Democrats.