Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (86)	4/30/2003 8:18:01 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793983

Here's the way the New York Times carried the Reps embrace of Santorum in full, let's salve the extreme right, regalia. Republican Lawmakers Back Senator in Gay Dispute By CARL HULSE nytimes.com WASHINGTON, April 29 — Republican leaders in Congress gave strong backing to Senator Rick Santorum today, dismissing calls by gay rights groups and Democrats for him to be replaced as the third-ranking Republican in the Senate for remarks about homosexuality. Senior officials in both houses swiftly rose to Mr. Santorum's defense as Congress returned from a two-week recess and the lawmakers faced questions about him from reporters. "I think Senator Santorum took a very courageous and moral position based upon principles and his world view," said Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority leader from Texas. Mr. DeLay said he was proud of Mr. Santorum for "standing on principle." Mr. Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican who is the chairman of the Senate Republican Conference has been caught in a storm since he discussed a Texas antisodomy law under review by the Supreme Court during an interview with The Associated Press. Referring to sodomy, he said, "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything." The remarks sparked outrage from gay rights groups, Democrats and a few moderate Republicans who suggested he should apologize or be replaced in the upper echelon of the Senate hierarchy. They made comparisons to the way Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the former Republican leader, was pushed aside after comments seen as racially divisive. But Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, said today that Mr. Santorum's support among his fellow Republicans in the Senate was solid. "Absolutely, he will remain in leadership," Dr. Frist told reporters. "He has the full, 100 percent confidence of the Republican leadership in the United States Senate." Dr. Frist went on to praise his colleague for his "inclusiveness, in terms of growing the Republican Party." Officials said Mr. Santorum thanked his fellow Republican senators for their support in a closed strategy luncheon and received a round of applause. People at the meeting said Mr. Santorum even received expressions of support from fellow Republicans who last week had expressed some misgivings about the comments. Mr. Santorum, who did not speak in public today, has refused to apologize and said that his remarks were more directed at the right to privacy rather than homosexuality. He said his position was shared by a majority of the Supreme Court in upholding a Georgia antisodomy law in 1986. Mr. DeLay repeated that point today, saying the court found "that it is very dangerous to say that whatever you do behind closed doors is your right to privacy." "It undermines a lot of moral questions that we have in this country," he said.

To: JohnM who wrote (86)	4/30/2003 8:30:45 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793983

Will be an interesting commentary on American politics to see just how this works out. I am pretty cynical about it. It energizes the left, as your reaction has shown. The right plays defense, and waits for it to go away. My guess is that it has no legs with the swing. You have to realize, John, the Santorum's position is the standard position of the Catholic Church. Twenty one percent of this country is Catholic. It is the standard position of the Evangelicals. Look at these stats on them. "Evangelical Christianity is the world's fastest-growing religious movement, researchers said. There are 645 million evangelicals in the world, about 11% of the world's population, the U.S. Center for World Mission and researchers Patrick Johnstone and David Barrett said. The movement is growing 3.5 times faster than the world population, and Pentecostal and Charismatic churches are growing 4.5 times faster. "That makes evangelical Christianity the fastest-growing major religious group and the only movement growing significantly through conversion," Johnstone said." pastornet.net.au I see these type of issues as base energizers.

To: JohnM who wrote (86)	5/1/2003 9:10:48 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793983

"NRO" Bush must have been really over the line with this Arkansas nomination, John. Doubts, Filibusters, and Schumer's Wacky Idea A bad day for the GOP on the judicial front. Thursday promises to be a day of turmoil and, occasionally, farce in the ongoing battle between the White House and Senate Democrats over the president's judicial nominations. In the turmoil category is the Senate Judiciary Committee's planned vote on the nomination of Leon Holmes to a seat on the U.S. District Court in Arkansas. When the committee meets this morning, it will likely alter its normal voting procedure out of fears that one or more Republicans might vote against Holmes. So far no committee Republican has ever voted against a Bush judicial nominee. Holmes has come under fire from Democrats for his strong pro-life views, particularly statements he made while president of the group Arkansas Right to Life. When the committee meets this morning, it appears that chairman Orrin Hatch will ask members to vote to send Holmes's nomination to the full Senate with no recommendation. Normally, the committee votes to send a candidate to the full Senate with a favorable recommendation; only if that vote fails does the committee then decide whether to send the candidate on with no recommendation. It appears that Hatch will skip the first vote because of worries that some Republicans ? most likely Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter ? might vote against Holmes. It's thought that Specter will agree to vote in favor of sending the nomination to the full Senate with no recommendation. Also contributing to the turmoil on the judicial front, this morning the full Senate will vote on whether to hold an up-or-down confirmation vote on the federal appeals court nomination of Priscilla Owen. Democrats have vowed to filibuster the nomination, as they have done with the nomination of appeals court candidate Miguel Estrada, and it appears Minority Leader Tom Daschle has the votes to frustrate the Republican majority. "They're acting like they do," says one GOP insider of Democrats. "They're cocky." In the Estrada standoff, 45 Democrats have voted to support the filibuster, meaning that Republicans are five votes short of having the 60 votes necessary to cut off debate and hold a confirmation vote. It's not clear whether all 45 Democrats who have blocked Estrada will also agree to block Owen, but Democrats appear confident. "We know that the other side doesn't have 60, which is the only number that matters" says a Democratic aide. "Whether the vote is 42 or 49 or 55, if they don't have 60, the result is the same." Meanwhile, the battle over the federal judiciary took a farcical turn Wednesday when New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer, perhaps the most zealous critic of Bush judicial nominees, sent the White House a proposal to end the current conflict. Schumer's idea is simple. The problem would be solved, he says, if the president would simply give up his constitutional right to nominate judges. Instead, Schumer suggests that Both the Administration and the Senate should agree to the creation of nominating commissions in every state, the District of Columbia, and each Circuit Court of Appeals. Every commission will consist of an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, chosen by the President and the opposition party's Senate leader. Each commission will propose one candidate to fill each vacancy. Barring evidence that any candidate proposed by a commission is unfit for judicial service, the President will nominate the individual and the Senate will confirm her or him. Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution says the president "shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for..." In his letter to the president, Schumer says that under his proposed system, "By giving the President and the Senate equal roles in picking the judge-pickers, both retain some control over the process, but neither gets a stranglehold." So far the White House has not responded. nationalreview.com