Blogotional

The best news I have heard in a while is when David Dreier appeared on Hugh Hewitt last night and said the Republicans have the votes and the vote will happen next week. That's the most reliable source I have heard that news from, and the first one reliable enough to give me genuine hope.

But after the reading of the day, and the comments of the weekend, this remains a very serious debate, even if we will win. Why? - because of the tactics and arguments used by the opposition in this debate. Since when does faith negate one's opinion on a matter of public policy. The discussions from the Democrats have not been an effort to persuade, rather they have been an effort to exclude a large portion, perhaps even majority, of the voting public from the debate. And they base that exclusion almost solely on the basis of religious conviction. They try and spin is differently, but it is so obvious, that they cannot hide it.

For an EXCELLENT review of the philosophical underpinnings for a world view that would produce such religious bigotry, read this post from Mark Daniels. Mark does not mention judicial nominations, but his post springs from a call he made to the Hewitt radio program last night, and it is really good, and related stuff.

UPDATE 8:20AM

Hugh Hewitt this morning looks at some of the liberal response to the Catholic speech that Mark Daniels is also commenting on. Hugh, of course, has an entirely political take on it, but it is well worth the read.

BACK TO ORIGINAL POST

I think it's official, religious bigotry IS my number one reason to blog so much about this, replacing responding to Terri Schiavo in that number one spot.

Virtually all the "news" stories on the matter cast the issue as the religious versus seemingly everybody else. There is this AP story, and this story from the Boston Globe.

Bloggers are everywhere on this. From our side of the aisle, Marchand Chronicles thinks this fight is analogous to the Gingrich 1995 government shutdown. I have to disagree, the mood of the country, is quite different today than it was then. From the middle somewhere, Moderate View wishes for the days of gridlock. I have to say, that misses the point entirely. Such gridlock is precisely what empower judges so. Judges act because the legislature doesn't. And then there is this lefty bit of bile poured out for all to see.

The leftie organizations remain a good source of humor. People for the Un-American Way:

Two judicial nominees who failed to win Senate approval during President Bush?s first term are moving this week, with Senate Judiciary Committee votes scheduled on Thursday, April 21 for Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown.

Of course, they "failed to win Senate approval during President Bush?s first term," they were filibustered for crying out loud. And Civil Rights.org continues to amaze me, planning some sort of rally/event in support of the filibuster. As I said yesterday, I love it when they forget their history. Check this out.

His doubters point to the watering down of the Eisenhower administration's 1957 civil rights bill as more proof that LBJ was at best lukewarm on the subject. But it should be noted that, even in its weakened state, that bill was the first federal civil rights law since the Reconstruction period. It didn't do much, only called for the establishment of a U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and authorized the U.S. attorney general to enforce voting rights. But even that little was too much for many, and Strom Thurmond set what was then the record filibuster (24 hours, 18 minutes) in speaking against it. Had it been much stronger, it might not have passed at all. And it only passed because Johnson forced the Senate into round-the-clock session to defeat the filibuster threat. (emphasis added

Thank goodness for some decent right-wing bloggers that take far more reasoned and convincing stances. Check out this post and this post from Captains Quarters. While we are in Minnesota, Powerline has a good two cents as well. Finally, Confirm Them is rapidly becoming THE go to site on this issue.

But I have saved the best for last - what has been said on the 'ol one-eyed living room monster known as the television. Check out all the posts at Radioblogger, who I think should change he blog name to "Transcriptboy." But my fav was Sunday night's "CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer." Check out this exchange:

BLITZER: Senator Frist, the majority leader, Senator Feinstein, is participating next Sunday, a week from today in a religious event to try to get the rules changed, to eliminate the filibuster, arguing that this filibuster, among the sponsors of this event, and I'm quoting now, "is being used against people of faith."

Is he going too far in aligning himself with that concept?

FEINSTEIN: Yes, I think so. I think it's a very dangerous, extreme thing. I think there is no telling what it might launch. It's entirely false.

First of all, you have to love the incoherence of Feinstein's response. Blitzer question is a bit rambling, but she does an awful job of telling us what part of her answer responds to what part of his question.

More importantly though, what precisely about the concept that the filibuster is being used against people of faith is dangerous, and what might it launch? Are we just a community of ticking timebombs waiting for the slightest provocation to explode? Are we all hiding weapons under the floorboards waiting for an opportunity to begin a new crusade? She denies that they are attacking people of faith while doing so in the very same breath. Her response implies that people of faith are somehow uncivil, unreasoning and dangerous if provoked.

I cannot help but feel that it is the secularists that are showing themselves to be uncivil, unreasonable and dangerous as they are provoked.

UPDATE 9:10AM

Hedgehog Blog has posted a great piece today on the filibuster. His point? -- let's debate instead of play parlimentary games.