The Republicans have crossed the line: debasement of America complete

[Brian_Expat]

http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Press_Room&CONTENTID=21498&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm

By a 233 to 194 vote, the House of Representatives today passed the Marriage Protection Act, a dangerous and discriminatory measure that would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act and block access for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community to the judicial system. This vote took place just after the 9/11 Commission issued its final report sharply criticizing Congress. Also, polling data released this week affirms that the American public opposes the politics of division.

Not only is this a noxious effort to strip gays and lesbians of their constitutional right to access for the court to redress unconstitutional issues, but it's an attempted coup against the constitutional order.

By passing this law declaring a law "off limits" from court review of its constitutionality, the Republicans have illustrated their complete contempt for the rule of law and have finally succeeded in demonstrateing their open plan to destroy the Constitution and everything that America stands for.

I am angry. I am disgusted. I am sad. I don't know whether to vomit or cry. :mad: :cry: :puke:

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Unconstitutional.

[SemperEadem]

8. exactly.. this was a waste of time to give a show to insecure

fundamental-cases that their marriages wont' be invalid just because gay people seek an equal footing in this country as far as the benefits that hetros take for granted is concerned. Nothing more. It is discriminatory, and by that definition, unconstitutional. It won't stand up to scrutiny.

You want to defend marriage? Outlaw divorce. Seeing that that won't happen (eh, Newt?), they need to pipe down and stfu.

[DieboldMustDie]

59. The U.S. Constitution, Article. III, Section. 2, Clause 2 states:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Don't get me wrong, I'm completely opposed to this bill, but whether it's unconstitutional... :shrug:

[gratuitous]

2. Well, since it's unconstitutional and won't pass in the Senate

You should probably just be upset that the elected representatives of the people can find absolutely nothing better to do than waste time on this nonsense.

It's not like there isn't a plethora of other, far more pressing issues to be taken up.

[redqueen]

3. Unbelievable

have they lost their minds? Are they morans?

Do they not understand how gov't is supposed to function?

:crazy:

:grr:

[moondust]

99. Yes, Yes, and No.

[Green Mountain Dem]

4. Who are the...

Dems who voted for this piece of crap??

[Brian_Expat]

5. They're listed in another thread. . .

. . . and I hope every single one of them is defeated.

[liberalmuse]

6. WHHHHAAAAAAAAATTTTT?

I've only read 3 topics so far today and I'm ready to have a coronary. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

[Green Mountain Dem]

7. I hear ya...

I've already had 2 (for real) and today could very easily produce the 3rd. A REALLY REALLY bad day so far...even Randi is not cheering me up. I am so glad I am on the downside of all this shit...but I really worry for my 5 yr old granddaughter.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

9. On to the Senate!

I am going to be very interested in the Senate vote on this.

This is something pretty rare, thats for sure.

[Brian_Expat]

10. This is something that MUST be highlighted by the Kerry campaign

Not the gay angle per se (though equal rights are vital). Rather, the absolute and complete destruction of constitutional order that would result from this practice if it became law.

This is something that people from Bob Barr to Jerry Brown can agree on. We must NOT allow the Republicans to undermine our constitution, and EVERYONE who voted for this -- Republican and Democrat alike -- must be challenged for their seat and defeated come election time with every resource available to those of us who believe in Constitutional government.

[uhhuh]

11. Exactly

It's as if the house passed a bill saying that no brown eyed American can buy corn, and the judiciary may not hear cases about this law.

Except this is much more serious.

[Brian_Expat]

13. This is, without exaggeration, the sorts of laws the Nazis passed

to see what they could get away with it.

With each legal precedent, they went further and further until there was nothing left for their political enemies/victims.

This is DEADLY serious and must not be tolerated under any circumstances. I would rather live in a Bush as president, Republican majority government with constitutional protections and separation of powers than under a Democratic president where a precedent has been established that allows the suspension of constitutional liberties at will through a congressional majority.

[Disturbed]

12. Democracy?

I have never felt that Repubs believed in the concept. They are and always were: Fascists. Amerika is not a Democracy. It is a Plutocracy. Both Repubs and Dems service the Plutocracy.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

20. This is actually unprecendented.

The article in yahoo quotes some Congressional research group saying this hasnt happened before, or at least not within living memory.

[TexasSissy]

49. Didn't Congress pass the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 under

Clinton? Does this new legislation just word the same law more strictly, to make certain the law has effect?

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

61. No...this is more fundamental

What makes it unprecedented is that it strips the Federal courts of jurisdiction over cases dealing w. gay marriage and related things like partnerships, etc....

This means, if this stripper bill passes the Senate, the Defense of Marriage Act can never be challenged in court.

[TexasSissy]

103. Yes, that's what I meant. They're ensuring that the DOMA has the

effect they thought it would have back in 1996, by making this new version stricter and less vague.

I saw some Congress people talking about how the DOMA is not doing what it had been intended to do, since the deal in Massachusetts came up, etc., etc. They were discussing whether passing another version that is more explicit would be the way to go, or a Constitutional amendment, or what could be done.

But this still has to pass the Senate, right? So....is there even time for the Senate to consider this before recessing, I wonder.

[kentuck]

14. All things considered, I think it more important to have a Dem Congress...

than a Democratic president...Just my opinion, but this would have passed today even with a Democratic majority...Or does the Speaker of hte House have any say in what agenda is brought up to be voted upon?

[Brian_Expat]

15. It must be fought, tooth and nail, by all of us, regardless of party

The destruction of our constitutional order is deadly serious, and we must stand up for all who attack it, Democratic or Republican.

There is nothing more important politically in this country than the basic rights and freedoms we have, guaranteed by our constitution and the judicial review of legislation to ensure compliance with that document.

Anything that undermines that is a threat greater than a second Shrub presidency, or a Republican majority in the legislature, or a terrorist attack. Undermining our constitution is our democratic republic committing suicide.

[GreenPartyVoter]

22. We need both. Encourage everyone you know to vote Dem in federal races.

[library_max]

16. Cheer up.

That piece of crap is dead, dead, dead in the Senate.

[Brian_Expat]

17. The fact it would even get THIS far is shocking

And frightening.

This is our wake-up call.

[kentuck]

18. I thought it was just voted down in the Senate??

Or was that something else??

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

21. This is something else...its more severe, in some ways.

It essentially strips Federal Courts of jurisdiction in certian gay rights cases....it prohibits the courts from hearing cases dealing with gay marriages, domestic partnerships, contracts, powers of attorney, etc....

...the idea is to bar gays from the courts so the USSC wont be able to rule on these issues.

[uhhuh]

19. It Doesn't matter

The fact that the FMA won't pass does not take away from the fact that the pukes, with THE HELP OF DEMOCRATIC COWARDS, are blatantly trying to undermine the separation of powers in the Constitution in a backdoor legislative move. They are trying to make law saying what the judiciary may and may not rule on.

If this issue was about what color of socks a certain group of people may wear, it would be no different. They are trying to say that congress rules over the Constitution and has the power to determine when laws are unconstitutional.

[Brian_Expat]

23. Exactly

This must be repeated OVER and OVER.

This is truly unprecedented, shocking, and frightening. And it's disgusting that any "Democrat" would support it.

[library_max]

26. Can you say "wedge issue"? /nt

[Brian_Expat]

29. It's more than that

It's an unprecedented assault on the separation of powers and Constitutional checks and balances.

[uhhuh]

30. Of coure it's

a fucking wedge issue!!

But the fact that it got even one co-sponsor, let alone voted on and passed, shows how sick our country has become.

You would think that any legislation that so blatanly defies the Constitution would not even be permitted to be heard, let alone voted on, but here we are....

[library_max]

31. I brought it up because

the way wedge issues work, see, is you get some of your opponents all worked up and screaming at others of your opponents, so that your opponents fight each other and not you. If you do it right, you can even get some of your opponents to stay home on Election Day, or even vote for you, because they're so disgusted with the others.

Can you see where this might have an application to our present discussion?

[Brian_Expat]

34. So we should just ignore this and pretend it didn't happen and not worry?

Ummmm. . . there are certain lines you don't cross, separation of powers of the three branches of government being one of them.

[library_max]

41. Yes. Ignore it.

Because it didn't happen. It hasn't passed, it isn't going to become law. It's just a tactic to get Dems to attack other Dems, and so far you seem to be playing along exactly the way the RNC wants you to.

[Brian_Expat]

43. Ignore the PATRIOT Act. Ignore 9/11. Ignore deficits. Ignore illegality

Where does it end?

Until we draw a line in the sand and stand behind it, the Republicans will keep pushing it further and further back.

We must stop being wimps and stand for what's right -- for once in our political lives.

If the separation of powers that forms the basis of our democracy isn't worth taking seriously and fighting for, what is?

[library_max]

46. Those are all things that happened. This didn't. /nt

[Brian_Expat]

72. Are you nuts?

This law has passed the House on a party-line vote. Right now, it's likely to pass the Senate on a party-line vote, and Bush is sure to sign it.

That's far from "it hasn't happened." If we take your approach and do nothing, it's almost certain to happen.

[library_max]

77. What happened to the last anti-gay bill that went to the Senate?

Died horribly, didn't it? Because, while some Democrats in the House were willing to toss on a vote that wouldn't make any difference in order to escape a deadly attack-ad issue, there are Republicans in the Senate who don't dare actually vote this thing into law. There are even a few Republicans in the Senate with principles, believe it or not. No, no chance of this abomination passing the Senate.

[Brian_Expat]

87. A constitutional amendment is not a bill

And NO real Democrats supported the Senate bill. LOTS of Democrats supported this bill.

And it's NOT just about gay marriage.

No, no chance of this abomination passing the Senate.

You say that with such confidence, yet lots of people were also confident that Herseth was "on our side."

[library_max]

91. A Constitutional Amendment starts as a bill, and that one ended as a bill.

Yes, I am very confident that this bill will never pass the Senate. Tell you what - how about calling off the dogs unless and until it does? Go ahead and write your Senators instructing them to vote against it, by all means; but put off howling for the mutilated corpses of Rep. Herseth and the others until after the Senate vote, when we can see whether we're talking about something real or not? How about it?

[uhhuh]

36. Only stupid people

Let wedge issues make their decisions for them.

It's because of things like this that we have to get the Dems back in the majority. A lot of them have gotten too used to not standing up. They only do so when it seems safe to.

If the rest of us don't make any noise, they will start to really believe they are in the minority, and they will NEVER speak up again.

My opponents are the GOP and their media machine. My allies need to be told when they fuck up. They are still my side, but we can't shut up when they are being played.

We have to make it clear that they fucked up. If we don't, we are saying that the pukes have a point, and they don't. They never do.

[library_max]

44. I guess it depends on what you mean by making noise.

But please remember that there are a whole lot of socially conservative working class people in this country who are more or less terrified of homosexuality but who are being screwed by Republican tax and economic policies. We need their votes in November. So whatever noise you plan to make, I hope it won't end up driving them away.

[Brian_Expat]

47. Who cares about November. . .

. . . if our Constitutional system is destroyed?

If this precedent stands, it doesn't matter who wins in November, America as we know it is finished.

[library_max]

51. But the precedent DOESN'T stand.

Our Constitutional system isn't destroyed.

And if the thing did pass, the only chance to reverse it would be to take back Congress in November, right?

Eyes on the prize, please! This is a distraction, a diversion. "Who cares about November?" is exactly what the RNC wants us to be asking each other! Why are some of us so eager to be played?

[Brian_Expat]

56. The only thing that will stop this from becoming precedent is action

And that action CANNOT exempt anyone who supported this abomination from having to face the music.

if the thing did pass, the only chance to reverse it would be to take back Congress in November, right?

No. If it passed, regardless of being recalled later, the precedent would be established that Congress can ignore the Constitution and declare laws "off limits" to appellate review.

[library_max]

62. You're still talking about something that doesn't actually exist. /nt

[Brian_Expat]

63. Ummmm. . . this bill has passed the House already.

It's on its way to the Senate. If it gets a simple majority vote, it's off to Bush, who is planning to sign it.

It's already well on its way to "existing."

[library_max]

66. It dies in the Senate, just like the last one.

The House votes means jack diddley.

[Brian_Expat]

78. There's no guarantee it will "die in the Senate"

The reason the FMA died was that it was a constitutional amendment requiring a 2/3 majority, not a simple act requiring a simple majority vote.

You cannot guarantee it "will die like the last one," and considering that Democrats actually supported this bill, unlike the FMA, it's far more likely that the bill can pass.

[ibegurpard]

79. So what?

I want every one of the Republicans and Democrats who voted for this to explain to me why they think they are exempt from judicial review. You want people like that representing you?

[Brian_Expat]

80. You're not a realist

It's not about people "representing you."

It's all about our team WINNING! It's a zero-sum game team sport, silly! All this principle stuff is what losers like Howard Dean believe in, when the real game is amassing power for "our" side! :eyes:

[library_max]

83. Please read post #81 below. /nt

[uhhuh]

52. Here's the noise

Democrats and other progressives need to stand up and tell them they are being played. They need to be told that their fear of the other is being used to make them vote agaisnt their best interests.

They DON'T need their fears and bigotry justified by having our side legitimize these issues as if they were really important.

Our side needs to scream bullshit on this.

[Lerkfish]

24. Can't work (crosses fingers)....

due to checks and balances, one branch is not supposed to restrict the abilities of another branch to function. Its unconstitutional and should not see the light of day...really.

However, as we are all aware, since the chimp messiah, all bets are off, constitutionally....so who knows?

[drscm]

25. So, like, are they going to pass another bill stating that the courts

or congress may not intervene in any decision made by the boy king?

This thing is so utterly unconstitutional, it is laughable, if not for the amount of time wasted to pass it.

*Bush better get busy and tell these folks what other special interest legislation they need to work on so that we will not think they are screwing around with stupid legislation on the taxpayers dollar.

[Brian_Expat]

27. Who knows?

If it's established as precedent that Congress can exempt any bill from SCOTUS review, then it's entirely possible.

Congress would become a dictatorship with no checks or balances, and could pass any law it wished without sanction or review. It could declare that Bush is "President for Life," and that would be binding law if they exempted it from SCOTUS review.

[neverborn]

28. Sent to Rep. Herseth --

I have two gay friends in South Dakota, who have been driving around the state campaigning for Stephanie Herseth -- both before the Special Election and after. They were at the Herseth party the night you won in Sioux Falls, SD. You have BETRAYED them by voting for the Marriage Protection Act, which undermines the Constitution and plays the politics of division. Declaring a law off limits from court review of its constitutionality, the Republicans have illustrated their complete contempt for the rule of law, and have finally succeeded in demonstrating their open plan to destroy the Constitution and everything America stands for.

You have voted to give gays, bisexuals, lesbians, and transgenders second class citizen status. You have betrayed my two South Dakotan friends who have given their lives to you and your campaign for the last two months.

The liberal internet grassroots supported you. Daily Kos and the blogosphere. My home forum, Democratic Underground. The liberals in South Dakota. The homosexual community, including my two friends, in South Dakota. You have betrayed all of us. We helped put you there, and we will welcome you to early retirement this November.

I know at least two votes going to the Republican, because at least he is up front about his plan to make them second-class citizens.

Stephanie Herseth, you LIED.

[library_max]

32. Brilliant.

Maybe, if we follow this strategy assiduously, we can get a two-thirds Republican majority in both houses of Congress. That'll be swell, won't it?

Folks, this is what wedge issues are FOR! You're practically following the RNC script!

[Brian_Expat]

35. You are short sighted

It doesn't matter if the Republicans lose their "majority" if Democrats undermine the Constitution.

Stephanie Herseth is not fit to hold office, just like the rest of the poeple who voted for this blatant and unpredecented bill. She, like the rest of them, should lose her seat, regardless of party affiliation.

[neverborn]

38. My friend.

These two girls have worked their asses off, and she's betrayed them. Completely.

[library_max]

50. So I should be happy that we're working for more Republicans in Congress?

Sorry, no. People need to understand that politics ain't beanbag, to quote Misther Dooley. The whole purpose of wedge issues is to put reps like Herseth in an impossible position. If she votes no, she pisses off enough swing voters to guarantee her defeat in the next election. If she votes yes, she pisses off some of her base.

This is how they play us. It only works if we let ourselves get played. If, on the other hand, we keep our eyes on the prize and don't let distractions get us down, we can win and start pushing our own agenda forward. Obviously, this bill wouldn't even have come up if Democrats were the majority in the House.

[uhhuh]

57. Bullshit

She could decline to vote on an issue that legitimizes the destruction of the separation of powers in the Constitution. Not one rep HAD to vote on this issue. They could have voted present, and issed a statement saying that this legislation was illegitimate on its face, and had no reason to be considered other than to play politics.
It could be pointed out that this issue could be about anything and it would still be an attempt to violate the Constitutional separation of powers.

There are only a few possibilities that I can see here.

Either the reps voting for agree with violating the Constition in order to pander to a segment, large or small, of their constituents, or they don't agree with it and are secretly lying to the people that elected them in order to keep their seats and get back a majority and push a different agenda or just, cynically, keep their seats for the position itself.

It seems simple to me.

I think you can stand for something and if you present a fair argument, you can even get reelected by people who don't agree with you on everything.

[ibegurpard]

58. Excellent reply!

:thumbsup:

[Brian_Expat]

60. Thank you

That's an excellent summation of the situation.

Incidentally, Howard Dean was savaged by doing exactly that, yet as every day passes, we see he was right and all his critics (on both sides of the aisle) were wrong. They are wrong on this as well.

[library_max]

67. Yes, Howard Dean is an excellent example

of how far wearing your heart on your sleeve will get you in national politics.

[Brian_Expat]

70. Howard Dean will save the day

Because Howard was right, and that drives his critics absolutely batty.

You seem to view this as a "chess game," when it's a lot more than that. I don't want to "win" if the price of "winning" is the separation of powers and the protection of the Bill of Rights.

That's a shit bargain.

[library_max]

81. But you're missing the point.

Winning means we say goodbye to all this fascist crap. This bill never would have been brought to a vote in the House if the Democrats were in the majority! When you're in the majority and the White House, YOU set the agenda. If we can regain the majority and the White House, the agenda will be OUR agenda. Then the Republicans can take their wedge issues and . . . wedge them.

The winners get to make the rules. You're trying to make the rules from the loser's position, and that only guarantees losing some more.

[Brian_Expat]

84. "Winning means we say goodbye to all this fascist crap"

Winning means we say goodbye to all this fascist crap

Funny, that's what they said when Bill Clinton was elected. It wasn't right then, and it's not right now.

The way to prevent fascism is to defend the Constitution, not wait for "saviours" from political parties to roar in and save the day.

[library_max]

94. Wait - so we had bills like this one under Clinton?

I don't think so. We didn't get everything we wanted (you never do, in politics), but we didn't get this kind of crap.

So it did work then and it will work now.

[library_max]

65. And the attack ad begins, "Here's why you can't trust Stephanie Herseth

to defend YOUR VALUES in Congress."

She doesn't have to vote against it for them to crucify her over it. Not voting for it can be made to look just as bad, even worse ("And she didn't even have the courage to embrace the homosexual agenda honestly!").

I think you can stand for something and if you present a fair argument, you can even get reelected by people who don't agree with you on everything.

Gee, wouldn't it be nice if that was true. But it isn't. Politics isn't anywhere near that nice.

[Brian_Expat]

68. I don't believe in "politics"

I believe in America.

Politics is not a "team sport" with winning and losing "sides." It's a commitment to the basic values that make the USA what it is.

The moment you abandon those values in order to "win," everybody loses -- including you.

If Herseth could not weather an attack ad on gay marriage without decimating the centuries old principal of separation of powers, then she's not qualified to be in politics.

[library_max]

71. And there's the formula for an ironclad two-thirds Republican Congress.

"If Herseth could not weather an attack ad on gay marriage without decimating the centuries old principal of separation of powers, then she's not qualified to be in politics."

Maybe you don't believe in politics, but politics believes in you. It's using you as a tool even as we speak.

[Brian_Expat]

82. "Politics"

So if Herseth voted to put Jews in concentration camps in order to curry favour with the Republicans and conservatives in her district, and I opposed it and stated she should be removed from office, would I still be a "tool of politics" for calling for her not to be re-elected?

How about if she voted to end the Civil Rights Act, or suspend Habeus Corpus or suspend the Bill of Rights?

Where does it end for you?

[ibegurpard]

85. "Oh, now you're just being ridiculous!"

That's what people say when you bring up extreme hypotheticals that show the flaws in their arguments.
I agree with you.

[library_max]

86. None of those are wedge issues.

Voting against those wouldn't cost her a single vote. Can't you understand that we need to pull socially conservative voters into the big Democratic tent this year? You seem to be trying very hard not to understand the actual situation.

[Brian_Expat]

88. Sure they're wedge issues

Lots of racists would love to see the Civil Rights Act revoked, for instance. She could add on plenty of racist voters to get a majority if Democrats stuck with her.

Why shouldn't she do that?

Push for the revocation of the Civil Rights Act for blacks and Jews, for instance, to get the fundamentalist and racist vote, and build a permanent majority since Democrats need a majority. Affirmative action, after all, is a major wedge issue.

[library_max]

95. Okay, now I'm going to say that you're being ridiculous.

The Civil Rights Act and affirmative action having nothing to do with each other. At this point you're just clutching at straws.

[uhhuh]

92. I think you missed the point

If she were to state the reasons I outlined for not voting that would eliminate your rw talking point.

It could have as easily been said the she voted for it, but she is secretly in support of the "gay agenda".

It wouldn't matter if she and other reps could make a case that this type of legislation could be used for ANY issue. The gun one being a good substitute.

It is true that people can and will reelect people that they may disagree with on many issues.

The vast majority of Americans believe that we should have universal health care, yet there are still Republicans in office.

[library_max]

97. When did the truth ever eliminate a talking point?

Her vote is a matter of public record. It's easy for them to shout down any reasons she might care to set forward for that vote. Especially since they'd have to be too long for a bumper sticker.

The vast majority of Americans believe that we should have universal health care up until the very moment when an actual plan for universal health care is put in front of them. Then they waver and crumble.

Refusing to understand how politics works won't change the way it works. Sorry.

[kodi]

73. all polticians lie. you're surprised she voted yes with elections coming?

the actions today in the house are not stand alone antics driven by crazy homophobes. they are part of a whole cloth that seeks to isolate and defeat moderate democrats by exploiting divisive cultural issues in an election year.

if the dems held the house the bill today would have never made it to the floor for a vote. now if herseth votes yea knowing the bill will never become law, and by that vote helps secure her re-election, the dems might have a fighting chance to re-capture the house and prevent such hateful measures from seeing the light of day.

principles matter a great deal. but if you don't win you don't get to decide. hersth's election was not the end all to what she and others are trying to do. its just the beginning.

you and your friends are justifably angry and should voice it. but i am curious actually that anyone would have thought that herseth would not vote for this considering how close her election was and the political culture of her voting district.

had she voted against it, her fall opponent would use it as a cudgle against her in november and the result would be one less democrat in the house. whether or not one considers such a politician as herseth a democrat on this issue is beside the point. the point for herseth is to win in november, even if it means a yea vote in a house bill on an issue that will never clear the senate.

i am sure you get this aspect. this is tactical politics.

and again, there is no santa claus, and all politicians lie (even Democrats). one should expect it, and plan for it.

change comes slowly to those who want it most. but in the end, if the dems are in the majority, this sort of legislative crap would be reduced.

finally, don't forget, the senate already killed any action on such nonsense that the house bill details.

[Brian_Expat]

75. Herseth is a whore, plain and simple

She doesn't deserve the support of the gay community and their allies in Dakota.

[kodi]

100. yes, as are all politicians. realizing it saves disappointment

you really expected herseth to "take one for the team" and chance losing an election because some homosexuals sent her campaign money?

seriously, what were you thinking? that politicians hold fidelity to some sort of principle higher than their own political survival?

don't get all indignant on me here, because i do not mean to spit in your holy water about how democracy is supposed to work, but did you really think that these people put your interests before theirs?

i admire your sentiment, but experience prohibits me from sharing it.

these folks do what few of us want to do, run the government as a job. expecting these folk to consider your interest over their own is not supported by the evidence available. since they are sacrificing for "us" when they are running for office and when holding one, they expect a return and they are willing to manipulate things to ensure their survival in the system. if they have to jettison a principle now and then along the way, they may well do so with the scrutiny of a Hasidic diamond merchant looking at gems, but they will let it go as a sacrifice to a higher purpose....their political survival.

there is no santa claus and all politicians lie.

[ibegurpard]

101. It's not about gay marriage

For the last time. It's about the House of Representatives actually voting to make themselves immune to judicial oversight. That flies in the face of our very SYSTEM of checks and balances.

[kodi]

102. blah, blah, were there no gay marriage concerns this wouldn't 've happened

many who voted for it know damn right well that their bill if signed into law would be found unconstitutional.

saying this isn't about gay marriage is horseshit.

and just what are you freaking out about. last week the senate already showed that they would have nothing to do with this kind of crap under another tactical guise with a vote on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. is it your case that now the senate will consider it prudent to do an end around what they already stopped earlier? these things in each house are related. you are getting upset about nothing of importance. no law will be made, nothing changes because of that house vote.

all that happened is that politicial virgins got soiled.

the entire process was theatrics to get house members on record about this, and i mean homosexual marriage, for the fall elections.

this stuff does not exist in a vacuum and busting one's spleen over issues used as tactical political weapons is useless except to prove to oneself how pure one think he is.

its not that fucking important so cool your jets and take a step back and look at it from a wider perspective. we always have tomorrow.

[ibegurpard]

104. If you think it's not important

that people who are supposed to be representing us are so stupid as to let their feelings about homosexuality cloud their judgement enough to vote to remove portions of our system of checks and balances then you deserve the government you get.
When it comes to corrupting the PROCESS and our very SYSTEM of government then, YES, I am a a purist. When it comes to individual POLICY I am willing to give legislators a great deal of leeway. If a Democrat from a conservative district had voted this way on some sort of gay marriage legislation that did not FUNDAMENTALLY change the way our government works then, although I would've been pissed, I would've been able to understand it. This is inexcusable.
Whether it will or will not be halted in the Senate is ALSO beside the point. Hypothetical situation: You have people defending a fortress. Some of the people defending the outer keep give the attackers the keys to the door. The defenders of the inner keep are able to stop the invasion. Do you give the people who let them into the outer keep a pass just because you managed to stop the invasion?
As I said earlier, I would be more comfortable being represented by a Republican who respected the rule of law and our system of government enough to vote no on this than I would a Democrat who voted yes.

[kodi]

105. so putting words in the mouths of those who disagree with you is chic?

If you think it's not important that people who are supposed to be representing us are so stupid as to let their feelings about homosexuality cloud their judgement enough to vote to remove portions of our system of checks and balances then you deserve the government you get.

did i happen to mention it as un-important somewhere? or did i happen to mention that the actions of some democrats was tactical positioning for later fights?

"Whether it will or will not be halted in the Senate is ALSO beside the point. Hypothetical situation: You have people defending a fortress. Some of the people defending the outer keep give the attackers the keys to the door. The defenders of the inner keep are able to stop the invasion. Do you give the people who let them into the outer keep a pass just because you managed to stop the invasion?"

nope, it is exactly the point. nothing will change because the senate won't concur with the house bill.

and yes, i would give attackers the key to the outer door, if by doing so i can put them in a position where i can drive the advesary back on his heels and plant my flag on top of his castle. again, these are tactics of political deception and all warfare, including the political kind is based upon it.

you want purity? go see a priest.

[ibegurpard]

106. quote from your post above

"its not that fucking important so cool your jets and take a step back and look at it from a wider perspective. we always have tomorrow."

At least check your responses if you're going to accuse people of putting words in your mouth.

[kodi]

109. taking my words out of context to make your point? how professional of you

never did i mention as unimportant what you declared was the issue, that viz.,

it's not important that people who are supposed to be representing us are so stupid as to let their feelings about homosexuality cloud their judgment enough to vote to remove portions of our system of checks and balances then you deserve the government you get.

i did not state any such thing in my comments.

rephrasing your opinions and misquoting me out of context and substance to support your position does not change the fact that nothing will come from the vote in the house. nor have i stated anywhere that dems (especially herseth's) who voted for the bill have let "their feelings about homosexuality" determine how they voted on this issue. their judgments in this issue were tactical positions meant to help their re-election, not fuck over homosexuals or the constitution.

frankly i am astonished that one would be so ignorant about how politics is done. the house history is replete with instances where a congressman/woman votes on an issue that they generally oppose, but for re-election purposes support it if there is no chance of the bill becoming law.

that's what happened here, and note that the original post i responded to called herseth a whore. on that i concur, but also note that anyone who thought politicians were not whores is naive.

[library_max]

107. You're not getting it.

Nobody let "their feelings about homosexuality" cloud their judgement. They let their desire for reelection influence them to make a vote that they knew would be meaningless for any practical purpose. The bill is a chimera. It can't pass the Senate, and every rep in both parties knew it. So it really doesn't matter if it said that in the future, two plus two will equal five. It's a dead bill.

Your hypothetical would fit the present situation if the attackers were already inside the outer gate, which is in ruins and could not possibly have been defended, and you want to punish the guards there who ducked and got out of the way instead of uselessly volunteering to be killed.

And as I said earlier, check the districts and you'll find that those Republicans who voted against this piece of crap all came from socially liberal districts. So their votes weren't a profile in courage either.

This is a completely phony issue, manufactured by the Republicans to get just the kind of reaction it's getting from you. Why are you playing their game?

[ibegurpard]

108. No, I am getting it.

And if this bill were only about POLICY then I would most likely agree with you. However, it's about PROCESS. We cannot afford to be pragmatic about process. Your nonchalance about this is very disturbing. You are saying that people shouldn't care if politicians are willing to play political games with our system of checks and balances.

[kodi]

110. no, you're not, neither policy nor process is at issue, re-election is

who are you? captain renault from casablanca? shocked, shocked that politics is going on in the house of representatives?

And if this bill were only about POLICY then I would most likely agree with you. However, it's about PROCESS. We cannot afford to be pragmatic about process. Your nonchalance about this is very disturbing. You are saying that people shouldn't care if politicians are willing to play political games with our system of checks and balances.

there is no nonchalance about this. its the way things are done in the house and always has been and frankly i am more disturbed about you incessantly bemoaning the event as a threat to the constitution, for when taken in context, your response to the vote is just chicken little-like shrillness that obscures the larger picture.

[ibegurpard]

111. Bite me

Truly.
The person that was responding to is capable of having a discussion about this while you are obviously not.

[kodi]

112. ah yes, truly. stamp your feet like a child. he said what i said to you

its re-election politics.

your posts here have all the earmarks of delusions of grandeur. repeating them until you are frustrated that other parties don't buy into your position, then claim the other side is incapable of understanding your superior logic....a logic that is insufferably akin to taliban logic.

[library_max]

113. Oops, that's my cue. Sorry.

Kodi's right, but I'll try to be nicer about it.

When politicians play political games, for example introducing bills that have no chance of passing and becoming law, it matters not one tiny bit in the real world what subjects they are playing political games with. The name of the game is the game itself, and the name of this one is split the opposition's support. And they've still got you playing it.

There is no such thing as a time when you can't afford to be pragmatic in politics. The only time you can afford not to be pragmatic is when your side is flying high and there is no perceivable end to your power and popularity. Does it look that way for the Democrats right now to you?

[SammyWinstonJack]

33. Both!

"I don't know whether to vomit or cry." :puke: :cry:

[opihimoimoi]

37. There is a Law that sez....the Powers that be, thats the Pubs, will

make Laws that suit THEIR Fancy, their Position, their Agenda.

They are 17% of the Population telling the rest of America how to live.......

Want to rectify this, change it, reconcile it?? Vote Dem...pure and simple, the Pubs shit and piss on US the American people while wrapping themselves with the American Flag.....and it fucking works for 17% of the People,,,

We shoulda, coulda, woulda..... but didn't collectively vote for OUR best interests... Nope, fell for the spin and now look what we got...
Nothing but excuses and body bags coming home....The Pubs don't care for Middle and Poor America... They care for themselves.

With that kind of an attitude, its no wonder we have the Anger, Hate, Arrogant, etc Levels in the Ionosphere.... we let a small group of people convince/fool/brainwash/mislead/ 17% of Americans who then wrest control from the rest of us. Are we that stupid? Go check the results and you tell me.....

[ibegurpard]

39. Here's the problem:

25 DEMOCRATS voted for this as well. This was not about gay marriage...it was about removing court oversight from congressional legislation.

[Brian_Expat]

40. Some of the "Democrats" supported this too.

Without Democrats voting for this unprecedented pile of unadulterated crap, the vote would have been much closer.

Democrats must accept some culpability in this situation.

[DaveSZ]

48. Agreed

This was not about gay marriage.

Our government is at severe risk at this point, and we could lose it forever.

[Democat]

42. Talking point: Next law will stop courts from overturning anti-gun laws

We need to make this clear to those on the right.

If they do this, then the "liberals" will do the same thing to take away your guns.

A Democratic congress could, following this logic, pass a law to forbid any federal court from reviewing anti-gun laws.

This is not a smart move by the Republicans and it will take away due process for all Americans.

[Brian_Expat]

45. YES

This is so amazingly dangerous and scary that you'd have to be blinkered not to be alarmed.

[library_max]

53. Actually, the courts have uphheld every challenged anti-gun law. /nt

[ibegurpard]

55. That's not the point

you DO get the point do you not?

[library_max]

69. Well, I'm guessing that it doesn't have anything to do with facts. /nt

[ibegurpard]

74. Obviously you DON'T get the point.

The point IS: The House of Representatives has just voted itself exempt from judicial review. Pick your issue...guns, gays, God. Any politician who would attempt to undermine the separation of powers like this is unfit for office. I would prefer to be represented by one of the Republicans who voted AGAINST this than one of the Democrats who voted for it.

[Brian_Expat]

76. But it's all about winning! Constitution be damned, we've gotta. . .

. . . get a majority! Live in the real world, all this "constitution" stuff is stupid and a diversion from the REAL issue! :eyes:

[stepnw1f]

90. I Agree With You

This is paramount. If Republicans are allowed to manipulate the constitution for purposes of hate and fear, Democracy is finished, for a very long time. This harms every citizen regardless of background.

[library_max]

89. Check out the districts of the Republicans who voted against this and

the Democrats who voted for it. I think you'll find that those Republicans are from socially liberal districts and those Democrats are from socially conservative districts.

Voting in a way that makes it possible for you to be reelected isn't an "attempt" to do anything except save your own ass. You need to see things for what they are.

Do you honestly think that Herseth's gay constituents would be better off with a Republican representative who "honestly" opposes them and everything they stand for, instead of a Democratic representative who ducked to save her political life when her vote wouldn't have changed anything anyway?

[ibegurpard]

93. Where does it end?

What line would be unacceptable to you?
Personally, I find congresspeople voting to give themselves immunity from judicial review to be beyond the pale.

[library_max]

96. It's not about lines.

It's about knowing the difference between something real and a diversion set up deliberately to encourage you to say or do something destructive to your own interests.

[AG78]

54. As I watched this vote today

I thought to myself, that I can't remember a time in human history where citizens of a country could sit down and watch Theocratic Fascism evolve in real time. They could see it in 20/20 hingsight 5 or 10 years later. Or historians could look back decades or centuries after the fact, and see exactly where the turning points were. But they didn't have access to it in real time.

Now we've been seeing this for a while. However, for this vote to go down, with that one special aspect to it, was simply stunning to watch.

This wasn't about a debate on gay marriage. This was about making just the thought of gay marriage disappear. What's next?

Sure, it has to go back to the Senate and all that good "democracy" stuff. But why would they not go for it? Is the Senate immune to a takeover by the Theocratic Fascist wing of the US? They do have a few in there.

This is a takeover that's been in the making for at least 30 years. I see no reason why they won't win. They have all the power, and the means to keep power. They've worked a long time, and very hard, to get the power that they have today. They will not let it go.

It's not about people anymore. We're easy to control. I know, polls show Kerry is up 5%. Anyone think that really matters? They got away with stealing an election once. I know, the people won't get fooled again. Would it matter if we weren't?

They'll never stop. These people are a part of corporations. They're no longer human.

[DaveSZ]

64. Gay marriage was used as a cover for fascism

Delay, Bush, and co have been wanting to strip jurisdiction from the federal courts for some time so that they can do whatever they want.

This gave them an excuse.

The same is true of the Patriot Act. They used 9/11 as an excuse to ram that through.

[opihimoimoi]

98. Ed Zachery the Point, The Pubs make the Laws to fit Their Needs/desires

Some Dems join for whatever reason but its the over view, the Big Picture, the Pubs ram shit down our throats like there is no tomorrow....