Wow. I was certainly aware that the view that the blocked confirmations being anti-Catholic, anti-Latino, etc. was the interpretation of the Republicans, which is fair (Dems attack Republicans as being biased all the time), but here you're stating this perceived bias as fact.

Perhaps I've missed a major news story here, but what exactly did Durbin, Boxer, or Schumer say indicating they didn't allow a vote "explicitly because Pryor is a devout Catholic"? If they did say something to that effect, you're right, that's horribly un-American; it's also unconstitutional ("no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States"). But what exactly did they say?

Why is it the left can never remember what their own champions say when it's so embarrassing? Or is this just the old lefty dodge of wasting your opponent's time and energy with pointless questions?

Schumer & Feinstein on Pryor

Kay Bailey Hutchison on Miguel Estrada

You want more? Welcome to the internet. Google.

Nailed it Martini man, take the rest of the weekend off. I was going to write something similar, but instead, just linked.

Well done.

Richard:

Congrats on being able to Google, but your reading comprehension is a bit lacking. I asked for some quotes by Democratic Senators, and you provide me with an NRO article and a speech by a Republican Senator. The only quotes by Democrats in either of those is Schumer's reservations about Pryor's "deeply held beliefs", and Feinstein's statement "Virtually in every area you have extraordinarily strong views which continue to come out in a number of different ways."

Neither is even remotely a rejection of Pryor based on Catholicism. There are such things as political and constitutional beliefs, you know. The question of whether those are acceptable as grounds to reject or block a judge is an important one, but that's not the point here. I specifically asked for evidence of explicit bias against Pryor or being a Catholic. You've provided none, just some out-of-context quotes provided by other conservatives. You're only proving my point.

Pursuit, check the name at the top of the post.

Totally surreal. Rapid leftwing ideologues denigrating strong views held by others.

The constitution demands that the full senate vote up or down on the president's nominees whether the sore losers in the opposition party like it or not. This President Bush isn't going nominate another Justice Souter, so stop stalling and start voting.

Jesse's right: no fire there, just a lot of dust kicked up.

If you're going to prove your point, you need to bring the goods to the argument. Saying "there's Google, look it up" doesn't fly. You're just bringing a stick to a knife fight.

I agree that Frist was the wrong choice for leader. Not experienced enough!

What Republicans need is a straight shooter who will make a stand. Stop bowing down to the MSM and the libs.

Tell the people what you are going to do and then do it. Stop pussy-footing around.

You only missed one major point ..

Let's Get On With It.

The GOP, at least at the Congressional level, has always been a really bad choreographer of these sorts of political events.
I realize that the majority party has the unseemly job of actually producing a budget etc., so it occupies a lot of their time, thus they leave most of the PR to K Street. The Dems must have had better lobbyists during their 40 years.

Jesse's right...McEnroe's links didn't do the job of nailing the Dem senators on "anti-Catholic" bias. But in the end, Jesse misses the forest through the trees. No reasonably talented politician will willfully say something stupid like "We can't be electing Catholics to the Judiciary" for just the reason that Green posts...it would establish a religious litmus test. Instead, what do the politicians say? "Deeply held beliefs." Which allows them to deny any anti-Catholic/Religious bias while still making their point that they don't want "extremists" on the bench because of those "deeply held beliefs." This is the kind of newspeak that politicians of either party use. But at the end of the day, it is what it is: A religious litmus test, which has no place in our country. Disagree with a person's views? Fine. But don't say they can't serve because they have "deeply held beliefs." That's bullshit.

Will,
You're right that Frist has been a disappointment. You're also right that this fight about the filibuster is misplaced. The President--of either party--deserves a simple vote from the majority of the Senate on his judicial nominees. Frist (and presumably the WH) should have pushed for these rules changes long ago [How did those extra-constitutional rules end up in place anyway?].

If the Dem's want a filibuster over these nominees, I say let them have it. Make 'em go to the mats and stand there all day and night yammering about one thing or the other. Did anyone (besides the gov't employees granted time off)notice anything different the last time the government got shut down? Did the sun not rise and set on time? Did the garbage get picked up? Then what are we worried about?

This issue is all about abortion, which the R's are more closely representing the people's will. The D's know they can't win abortion "rights" at the ballot box, so are fighting the issue in the courts.

And you just gotta love...
"...leftie heartthrob Ruth Bader Ginsberg...". I've never thought of her as a heartthrob, but am glad somebody does.

TO: Will Collier
RE: Good For Lefties....

"...but it's also just as inappropriate for Frist to be as in bed with the Dobson group." -- Will Collier

...bad for Christians, eh?

Is that what I'm reading here?

Black Southern Baptists let Lefties preach from their pulpit. And that's okay.

However, it's bad for Frist to speak Christianity from the floor of Congress? [Note: Where any duly elected member thereof can say jolly well whatever he wishes??!?!? Without fear of prosecution under the law...because they've got a law that allows that.]

Interesting.....

I don't know the nature of your 'faith', Will. But personally, I think you've got the right to say whatever you want whenever you want to say it. That goes for Senator Frist as well.

Why is it you think it's wrong for the good Senator to not be able to say what he thinks? Whether he stands in the Senate or in the public venue, elsewhere?

If his constituents don't like what he says, they'll remove him.

Where do you think you get off telling him what he can or cannot say? Who died and made YOU 'god'?

You can disagree with him all you like. It's your preogative. But please avoid trying to act as public censor. It looks badly on you.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

erp,

I stand corrrected. Will, nice job. Stephen, uh...get back to work!

And sometimes They do your job for you...

And sometimes they do your job for you...

Those memos weren't leaked!

Anyone w/a shared folder icon on your computer at work could do the same thing.

The dems did it to themselves.

They're the ones who chose and gave the instructions to the computer people as to how to set up the stuff because they were in charge at that time.

---

Besides, the dems have already alienated a lot of Catholics, oh, yes, let's do some more damage.

I never really understood why they picked Frist for senate majority leader? Maybe I'm biased, being from Alabama, but they should have picked Shelby for senate majority leader.

The Dr. is not a leader. These judges should have been to the floor of the Senate in March. He needs to be replaced. It is not a lack of experience it is a lack of moxie. It seems his IQ is not >100. I care not who he talks to, I care about the fact that in 2 years he has not got anything of significance (other than big government bills) done.

Bringing a stick to a knife fight is not a bad idea. It can offer an advantage of reach.