Putting aside the constitutional merits of the filibuster, I just don't understand how pryor's nomination warrants being kept from a full vote. There's one rather ridiculous argument he made that discredits him quite a bit, and it has definitely left him open for questioning from the full senate. But that seems to be it. The rest of his work seems to have been fair from what I have read (even if I personally disagree with a lot of it - the strangest thing is he's being criticized for "far right" positions he's taken that were affirmed by the Supreme Court - not quite sure how that reflects him acting outside the law). I'd hate to see minority parties lose the ability to block truly outrageous nominations because of moves like this.

It being 70-30 IN THE GENERAL POPULATION can't possibly be accurate. I don't think it's ever even been 60/40.

The claim that 73% of REPUBLICANS are pro-choice is absolutely ludicrous.

That's it Alceste. No more 'Alarming News' for you.

Never you fear, oh vigilant guardian of liberalism, I still think some of the nominations make Bush look like a jackass. Comments like this one, however, are not particularly helpful if one is trying to engage in a civilized debate.

I think you are mis-reading the (poorly worded) statement. It's not saying 73% of all Republicans are pro-choice (ridiculous on the face of it). It's saying of all pro-choice Republicans, 73% are members of RMC. At least, that's the way it reads to me.

But that's even odder. If they really had those kinds of numbers, they'd be a really powerful group.

Or, it could be an admission that there aren't that many pro-choice Republicans, I guess.

I think I can remember your friend Arlen Specter saying over 50% of republicans were pro-choice last year. I think "pro-choice" here is only "not all abortions should be banned" rather than "save roe at all costs"...

And to quickly clarify, I have no idea if Specter's right - just pointing out people have been throwing out similar stats before...

I'm a pro-life Republican and I'm not annoyed.

Richard Pryor wants all gay people to be imprisoned, so that's enough reason for me to oppose his nomination.

He was the only Attorney General outside of Texas to speak in favor of Texas's decision to prosecute gay sodomy, but not heterosexual sodomy. This, despite the fact that even his home state's law did not make such a distinction.

So yeah - I oppose Federal judges who think its fine and dandy to put gay people in concentration camps.

But I will add that he should get a full vote. I'm opposed to the fillibuster for judges.

DL, so you're ok with the Log Cabins joining forces with a group you totally oppose?

Richard Pryor wants all gay people to be imprisoned

Not THE Richard Pryor?!

He he Shawn. That's what happens whe you type too fast!

Karol - Sure I have no problem with them joining forces on this one issue. Kind of like who we allied with Russia in World War II to defeat the Nazis.

I'd prefer Bush pick a conservative jurist who is not so homophobic. A pro-life libertarian, of which there are plenty, including Badnarik who ran for President.

Turning "William" into "Richard" isn't a typo. It's an obvious case of not knowing who the hell you're talking about.

At least all the cocks I sucked paid my way through college...