Your comment about Fox News is also off the mark. This is just a disguised insult against me. Let's stick to facts. By the way I don't find Fox News to be Conservative or Liberal. I find them Fair and Balanced

I'll try to take it one at a time. Yes Frist is planning a run for the Presidency. Your point is correct in that he may be doing this for the same reason McCain is doing what he did. I do not agree that Bush bailed out on Frist in any way. Bush has said from the beginning that he wants all of the judges he has nominated to get a fair up and down vote as has been the courtesy of the Senate in the past.

Our representatives are elected by the majority of the people. Therefore I would expect them to do what they were elected to do. "His own personal vision" as you put it, "is" why he was elected. So I expect him or her to follow that vision.

Yes the constitution is designed to be a fluid document. To be changed by the House and Senate! Not to be changed by judges at will who disagree with any particular law. This is simple high school information. The House and Senate make the law and the judiciary applies the law. Judges have no constitutional right whatsoever to make law from the bench. And any judges that do this should be impeached IMO.

Let's get something straight. I am not a religious fanatic. I don't even go to church, although I believe in God and Jesus. I don't believe Bush is a religious fanatic and I don't believe he was elected by religious fanatics either. I don't walk "lock step" as you put it with the Republicans (an attempt on your part to compare the Republicans with Nazi's). I disagree with some of the things that the Republicans are doing. One example would be the use of stem cells for research.

This government is set up to be run by the representatives we elect be that congressman or the President. They are elected by a majority. Therefore they are doing what the majority want them to do. And if they don't they don't get re-elected. Yes the minority party has rights. That's why there are laws protecting the minority party in congress. Let's stick to the law.

I stick by what I said about McCain. He was not elected to compromise with the Democrats. Why is it that the Democrats always talk about compromise when they are going to lose but never when they are going to win? That said, if the people like what McCain is doing then he will be re-elected. But consider this, why didn't McCain run as an independent??? He runs as a Republican to fool people into thinking he follows the ideas of a conservative. This is disingenuous. If he believes in compromise he should run as an Independent don't you think? I would expect an Independent to go against both sides at times.

This has been a good debate. I'm sorry but I just don't have time to sit at the computer all day. I am going to sign off for now. If you would like to continue our discussion that's fine but I may not be able to answer as quickly as I would like to.

Good listening and may the force be with you! (sorry saw Star Wars this weekend)

I disagree with your perception of McCain lets just leave it at that. John McCain ran as a Republican because if he ran as an Independent (which he is) or as a Democrat (which he is becoming) he would not have won in Arizona. IMO.

It is impossible to have debate without facts. I don't know how to try to persuade you that your opinion may be wrong without stating facts.

The job of the legislature is to do the business of the constituents that "elected" them to office. Not to pander to every group of people. We have gone over this already.

I am not talking about judges that are deciding whether or not a law is constitutional. I am talking about judges that make up there own laws. You want an example and there are many but I will give you one. It concerns the New Jersey Supreme Court and their decision to disregard law and allow the democrats to put in a substitute for Sen. Torricelli who was falling way behind in the polls during an election for the Senate because of scandal. This substitution was allowed even though the law clearly stated that it was not allowed. See the link below which explains this case. I really don't wish to discuss this case in depth because my point is that the liberal judges in this case clearly didn't like the fact the Sen. Torricelli was going to lose and changed and/or disregarded the law in order to allow an more viable candidate to be substituted in at the last minute. There are many other examples of Judges making law. Not interpreting them. Such as the Mass supreme court ruling recently about gay marriage etc. Problem is a judge can easily change law or legislate from the bench simply by saying anything they don't like is unconstitutional with no basis in fact.

• http://www.cwfa.org/printerfriendly.asp?id=2587&department=cwa&categoryid=misc

I have absolutely no problem with the war in Iraq. And no it's not for oil. The liberals just don't learn from history. Saddam was a huge threat to us and the rest of the world. Leaving him in power would have been a disaster waiting to happen. This is how Hitler took over half the world. I will leave this subject with this quote:

"There is no avoiding war, it can only be postponed to the advantage of others." N. Machiave

I brought up gay marriage only as another example of judges making law. The liberal judges in Mass didn't like the law against gay marriage so the made up their own. The constitution saying Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness has nothing to do with gay marriage. Note that I didn't say whether I was for or against gay marriage. You stated polls as saying that most people agree with this sell out by McCain. Well most polls show overwhelming support for making gay marriage illegal. Does that mean you think it should be made illegal by a federal law? That the democrats should vote for such a law because after all, the representatives vote into office are supposed to do the will of the people right??? Or is that just when you agree with the out come?

All of that said, I notice you didn't comment on the subject of my post. You requested examples of judges making up law. I provided one. You didn't respond. Maybe you agree with this example because you agree with the outcome. In the words of the late great Ronald Reagan "This is just feeding the crocodile hoping it will eat you last" Keep in mind it works both ways. Eventually the Conservative judges will start legislating from the bench. Then maybe you will think it's more of a problem then. Whether Republican or Democrat, this is a huge problem that everyone needs to watch carefully.

" When the prince is obliged to shed someones blood, he should do so only when there is proper justification and manifest cause, but above all, he must abstain from taking the property of others, for men sooner forget the death of their father than the loss of their land."

I can't start listing polls like a shlub; they are in all the newspapers today, including Washington Post, New York Times, Christian Science Monitor etc. Just google news.

Jeez; Iraq?We are doing real well over there. The people just love us.
What really intriques me is the concept of making anything that has to do with personal behaviour illegal. Providing it does no harm; then why?? This I find truley baffling.

May 24, 2005
Public Conflicted in Filibuster Debate
A third say both parties acting like "spoiled children"

by David W. Moore

A substantial majority of Americans are paying little attention to the debate over the Senate's filibuster rule, according to the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey. After being informed about the issue, 48% of respondents say they favor the Democrats' side and 40% favor the Republicans' side. However, when the question is posed differently, 35% of respondents favor the position that Republicans are arguing for, while 19% favor the position that Democrats prefer. Clear majorities of respondents say the Republicans and, separately, the Democrats are acting like "spoiled children" rather than "responsible adults." However, a majority believes that at least one party is acting responsibly.

Hardly seems like a slam dunk for either side to me. You can find the rest on Gallops web site if your so inclined.

I said that I didn't want to debate the case I sighted. I wanted to debate the principle. Which I am still willing to do. You are avoiding the discussion that you yourself brought up.

Saddam was a threat to the USA and the world as I said. Not to mention the fact that he signed a peace agreement (after attacking and occupying a neighbor country starting a war.) stating that he would comply with any and all UN Resolutions. We allowed him to stay in power if he agreed to allow inspectors etc. If not the war continues and he gets removed from office. He broke how many of these UN resolutions?

I'm sure Machiavelli said a lot of things. I was posting his quote in this instance because it makes perfect sense and pertains to our discussion. Just look at history.

I believe the vast majority of people in Iraq are supportive of the US and are very grateful. Of course these people are never given any press. If democracy is achieved in Iraq (A big "if" I grant you) and that leads to peace in this part of the world, GW Bush will go down in history as one of the great presidents. Of course the Democrats can't have this so they will sell out thier country to make sure it doesn't happen. They are doing everything in thier power to make sure the US fails in this war along with thier willing accomplices in the media. You want to talk about doing the right thing for the country? Consider this question: Why is it that what's good for the country is good for Bush and the Republicans (Peace achieved in Middle east etc.) but what bad for the country is good for the Democrats (Bush fails miserably in the middle east)?

Gay marriage goes far beyond personal behavior. It is a subject that has far reaching implications and I don't wish to get into right now Not because I can't debate it but simply because it will take too much time. I wish just once with these kind of discussions the participants could stick to just one subject at a time. The subject I have been trying to stay on was the deal (or sell-out) by the handful of Senators about Bush's nominees.

Ok manualblock. You win. This is starting to effect my day so I give up.