Frist is an Ass

[strandinthewind]

Sounds like this cat killer ( http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...1-071056-3546r )is setting up his Pres. run. I get that he does lots of pro bono medical work, but this guy is scary scary and, most likely, a crook due to his medical companies - not that that is a prohibition for being a politician, esp. in W's world. In any event, he certainly is beating the "only the Christian way is good" drum that Rove loves so much and uses to great effect.


April 15, 2005
Frist Set to Use Religious Stage on Judicial Issue
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

ASHINGTON, April 14 - As the Senate heads toward a showdown over the rules governing judicial confirmations, Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, has agreed to join a handful of prominent Christian conservatives in a telecast portraying Democrats as "against people of faith" for blocking President Bush's nominees.

Fliers for the telecast, organized by the Family Research Council and scheduled to originate at a Kentucky megachurch the evening of April 24, call the day "Justice Sunday" and depict a young man holding a Bible in one hand and a gavel in the other. The flier does not name participants, but under the heading "the filibuster against people of faith," it reads: "The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and it is now being used against people of faith."

Organizers say they hope to reach more than a million people by distributing the telecast to churches around the country, over the Internet and over Christian television and radio networks and stations.

Dr. Frist's spokesman said the senator's speech in the telecast would reflect his previous remarks on judicial appointments. In the past he has consistently balanced a determination "not to yield" on the president's nominees with appeals to the Democrats for compromise. He has distanced himself from the statements of others like the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, who have attacked the courts, saying they are too liberal, "run amok" or are hostile to Christianity.

The telecast, however, will put Dr. Frist in a very different context. Asked about Dr. Frist's participation in an event describing the filibuster "as against people of faith," his spokesman, Bob Stevenson, did not answer the question directly.

"Senator Frist is doing everything he can to ensure judicial nominees are treated fairly and that every senator has the opportunity to give the president their advice and consent through an up or down vote," Mr. Stevenson said, adding, "He has spoken to groups all across the nation to press that point, and as long as a minority of Democrats continue to block a vote, he will continue to do so."

Some of the nation's most influential evangelical Protestants are participating in the teleconference in Louisville, including Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family; Chuck Colson, the born-again Watergate figure and founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries; and Dr. Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

The event is taking place as Democrats and Republicans alike are escalating their public relations campaigns in anticipation of an imminent confrontation. The Democratic minority has blocked confirmation of 10 of President Bush's judicial nominees by preventing Republicans from gaining the 60 votes needed to close debate, using the filibuster tactic often used by political minorities and most notoriously employed by opponents of civil rights.

Dr. Frist has threatened that the Republican majority might change the rules to require only a majority vote on nominees, and Democrats have vowed to bring Senate business to a standstill if he does.

On Thursday, one wavering Republican, Senator John McCain of Arizona, told a television interviewer, Chris Matthews, that he would vote against the change.

"By the way, when Bill Clinton was president, we, effectively, in the Judiciary Committee blocked a number of his nominees," Mr. McCain said.

On Thursday the Judiciary Committee sent the nomination of Thomas B. Griffith for an appellate court post to the Senate floor. Democrats say they do not intend to block Mr. Griffith's nomination.

That cleared the way for the committee to approve several previously blocked judicial appointees in the next two weeks.

The telecast also signals an escalation of the campaign for the rule change by Christian conservatives who see the current court battle as the climax of a 30-year culture war, a chance to reverse decades of legal decisions about abortion, religion in public life, gay rights and marriage.

"As the liberal, anti-Christian dogma of the left has been repudiated in almost every recent election, the courts have become the last great bastion for liberalism," Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council and organizer of the telecast, wrote in a message on the group's Web site. "For years activist courts, aided by liberal interest groups like the A.C.L.U., have been quietly working under the veil of the judiciary, like thieves in the night, to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms."

Democrats accused Dr. Frist of exploiting religious faith for political ends by joining the telecast. "No party has a monopoly on faith, and for Senator Frist to participate in this kind of telecast just throws more oil on the partisan flames," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York.

But Mr. Perkins stood by the characterization of Democrats as hostile to faith. "What they have done is, they have targeted people for reasons of their faith or moral position," he said, referring to Democratic criticisms of nominees over their views of cases about abortion rights or public religious expressions.

"The issue of the judiciary is really something that has been veiled by this 'judicial mystique' so our folks don't really understand it, but they are beginning to connect the dots," Mr. Perkins said in an interview, reciting a string of court decisions about prayer or displays of religion.

"They were all brought about by the courts," he said.

Democrats, for their part, are already stepping up their efforts to link Dr. Frist and the rule change with conservatives statements about unaccountable judges hostile to faith.

On Thursday, Mr. Schumer released an open letter calling on Dr. Frist to denounce such attacks. "The last thing we need is inflammatory rhetoric which on its face encourages violence against judges," he wrote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/15/po...rint&position=

[strandinthewind]

Moreover, this "The D's have blocked a sig. number of W's judicial nominees" is utter crap

to wit:





washingtonpost.com
GOP May Target Use of Filibuster
Senate Democrats Want To Retain the Right to Block Judicial Nominees
By Helen Dewar and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, December 13, 2004; Page A01


As speculation mounts that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist will step down from the Supreme Court soon because of thyroid cancer, Senate Republican leaders are preparing for a showdown to keep Democrats from blocking President Bush's judicial nominations, including a replacement for Rehnquist.

Republicans say that Democrats have abused the filibuster by blocking 10 of the president's 229 judicial nominees in his first term -- although confirmation of Bush nominees exceeds in most cases the first-term experience of presidents dating to Ronald Reagan. Describing the filibusters as intolerable, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has hinted he may resort to an unusual parliamentary maneuver, dubbed the "nuclear option," to thwart such filibusters.

"One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end," he said in a speech to the Federalist Society last month, labeling the use of filibusters against judicial nominees a "formula for tyranny by the minority."

So far, at least, Democrats are refusing to forgo filibusters and say they will fight any effort by Frist to act unilaterally to end them for judicial nominations. They warn that it could poison the well for bipartisan cooperation on other issues in the upcoming Congress.

"If they, for whatever reason, decide to do this, it's not only wrong, they will rue the day they did it, because we will do whatever we can do to strike back," incoming Senate Democratic leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) said last week. "I know procedures around here. And I know that there will still be Senate business conducted. But I will, for lack of a better word, screw things up."

Democrats, however, face several constraints. Democratic strategists said that some of the party's senators from states Bush carried in the presidential election could be reluctant to support a filibuster for fear of being portrayed as obstructionist -- a tactic the GOP used successfully in congressional elections this year and in 2002.

With a Supreme Court nomination, Democrats could be blamed for deadlocking the court at its current four conservatives and four liberals, making it impossible for the court to decide the toughest cases.

White House officials are willing to say little about their Supreme Court strategy and brush off questions by saying simply that Bush will choose the most qualified candidate. But several lawyers and former administration officials who have discussed the issue with West Wing aides said they see indications that Bush is headed toward nominating what one called a "strong ideological conservative" rather than accommodating Democrats with a choice who would be confirmed with little controversy.

One of those signs is that despite Bush's rhetoric about bipartisanship, Democrats say he has done little to reach out to them since his reelection. And some administration officials say they believe any goodwill that was established would quickly evaporate with the president's first Supreme Court nomination.

Several knowledgeable lawyers said the White House has discussed a strategy of explaining a conservative pick by saying that the nominee is of the same stripe as the justice being replaced. "Anybody except for a strong ideological conservative is a waste of a fight," one adviser said. "What they plan to say is that they would not be fundamentally changing the makeup of the court."

Several administration officials said Bush signaled this strategy last month when he nominated White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales to be attorney general, taking him out of the running for an immediate appointment to the high court. Gonzales would be more likely to be viewed as a centrist pick than some of the other lawyers under consideration. Administration officials said that although Gonzales is likely to be considered for a future seat, the first choice will be someone whom conservatives will embrace immediately.

Scholars agree that a bitter showdown could shatter the fragile comity that is essential for action in the Senate and set a precedent for further erosion of minority party rights in the chamber. "I think we're headed into uncharted waters in terms of the scope of the filibuster and the retaliatory moves that are being contemplated," said Sheldon Goldman of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, an expert on the judicial nomination process.

At issue is a seldom-used, complicated and highly controversial parliamentary maneuver in which Republicans could seek a ruling from the chamber's presiding officer, presumably Vice President Cheney, that filibusters against judicial nominees are unconstitutional. Under this procedure, it would take only a simple majority or 51 votes to uphold the ruling -- far easier for the 55-member GOP majority to get than the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster or the 67 votes needed to change the rules under normal procedures.

It would then take only 51 votes to confirm a nominee, ensuring approval of most if not all of Bush's choices.

Senate GOP leaders say no final decision has been reached on whether to use this maneuver (which they prefer to call the "constitutional option") and, if so, when. But they have signaled they may do so next year, either shortly after the new Congress convenes in early January or -- more likely, some Republicans say -- after Democrats mount a filibuster against another judicial nominee.

Historically, lawmakers of both parties have engaged in filibusters -- a word derived from the Dutch name for pirates to describe a process of unlimited debate that has been enshrined in the Senate for two centuries -- mostly to block or delay final votes on legislation. But filibusters have also been used against judicial and other nominations, although never in such a systematic manner, Republicans said. In 1968, Republicans filibustered President Lyndon B. Johnson's choice of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to be chief justice, but Johnson withdrew the nomination in the face of Fortas's likely rejection by the Senate.

During Bush's first term, Democrats successfully filibustered 10 of Bush's 52 nominees for appeals courts, while acceding to the confirmation of 35 others. The appeals court confirmation rate was low, but not as low as the rate for President Bill Clinton's second term, Democrats said.

Democrats contend the 10 filibustered judges are too far outside the legal mainstream to warrant lifetime appointments, describing them as the cutting edge of an effort by Bush to pack the courts with ideologically driven conservatives. They also argue that, during the Clinton administration, the GOP majority in the Senate blocked action on dozens of judicial nominations, without need for a filibuster because they could use their majority-party powers to bury nominations in committee or block them through anonymous "holds" on the Senate floor.

Republicans counter that, even though the number of filibustered nominations is small, the Democrats are trampling on the Constitution by denying a straight up-or-down vote for even a single nomination. The Constitution, they note, requires two-thirds majorities for treaties, constitutional amendments and other specific matters but calls for only the "advice and consent" of the Senate on judicial choices, with no reference to any super-majority for confirmation.

Democrats disagree, arguing that the Constitution empowers Congress to set its own rules of operation and does not specify the size of a majority needed for judicial confirmations because the issue was to be left to the Senate to decide. "What about all these people who say they want a literal reading of the Constitution?" asked Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Although frustrated Senate leaders have resorted in the past to tactics involving at least some aspects of the nuclear option, none of the confrontations approached the significance -- or political explosiveness -- of the current dispute, with implications stretching beyond the issue of judicial nominations.

Although it would not directly threaten filibusters on legislative issues, critics believe it could open the door to further erosion of the Senate's long tradition of unlimited debate as a last refuge for political minorities and a brake on precipitous action by presidents and legislative majorities. Although Bush would have an easier time getting the judges he wants, Democrats warn that he could run into trouble on Social Security, tax simplification and other major second-term initiatives that will probably require Democratic cooperation for passage.

Use of the nuclear option "would make the Senate look like a banana republic . . . and cause us to try to shut it down in every way," Schumer said. "Social Security and tax reform need Democratic support. If they use the nuclear option, in all likelihood they would not get Democratic support" for those and other initiatives, he added.

Republicans considered the nuclear option last year but backed off because they lacked the votes to prevail. Emboldened by a gain of four seats from the Nov. 2 elections, many of its most ardent supporters believe they now have the votes to win.

Staff writers Charles Babington and Charles Lane contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

[DrummerDeanna]

He's more than an ass...there a story about him on NPR right now - I can feel my blood pressure rising....grr...this pisses me off to no end

[golddustwoman77]

Bill Frist is from my state, and I don't see how he keeps getting elected. I don't know anyone who like him. I guess there must be someone out there, or he wouldn't be in office. The question is: where are they? Anyway, I HATE the man, and he would be another Bush or worse.

My husband is a doctor, and he admits that he does many, many things against his own profession. How sad is that! I mean, your job is big part of who you are. Obviously, he doesn't have an identity or any moral fiber.

If he does run for President, I don't see him being the Republicans' candidate in the end. He doesn't come across as "people" or "camera" friendly. He would never win, IMO.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by golddustwoman77

Bill Frist is from my state, and I don't see how he keeps getting elected. I don't know anyone who like him. I guess there must be someone out there, or he wouldn't be in office. The question is where are they? Anyway, I HATE the man, and he would be another Bush or worse. My husband is a doctor, and he admits that he does many, many things against his own profession. How sad is that! I mean, your job is big part of who you are. Obviously, he doesn't have an identity.

If he does run for President, I don't see him being the Republicans candidate in the end. He doesn't come across as "people" or "camera" friendly. He would never win, IMO.

AND - the man killed and experimented on cats while in medical school. That just screams of Hitler and Minghla (sp.?) He scares me FAR more than W. I pray the D's present a candidate with balls this time.

[golddustwoman77]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

AND - the man killed and experimented on cats while in medical school. That just screams of Hitler and Minghla (sp.?) He scares me FAR more than W. I pray the D's present a candidate with balls this time.

Know, it is scary! I'm sure that many of the people who voted for him don't know that. It is too bad people don't pay attention to the people they elect. I'm just ashamed he is from my state.

[amber]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

AND - the man killed and experimented on cats while in medical school. That just screams of Hitler and Minghla (sp.?) He scares me FAR more than W. I pray the D's present a candidate with balls this time.

My blood is boiling. That's one of the potential signs of a serial killer, too, is "experimenting" on animals. Please, not him.

[macfanken]

You'd have to be a MONSTER to kill this sweet little thing!!

[BombaySapphire3]

I thought things could not get much worse than "W' but Frist makes him look like a moderate.The upsetting thing is we know there are alot of stupid people in this country as evidenced by the 2004 election.If Frist ever becomes president I'll have to move to Canada .That is if the Bay area doesn't secede in the wake of such a disaster.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by macfanken

You'd have to be a MONSTER to kill this sweet little thing!!

I think of my beloved Scotties that I euthanised (sp.?) and how I AGONIZED over it. This MF'ER is a sick FU%^.

[amber]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I think of my beloved Scotties that I euthanised (sp.?) and how I AGONIZED over it. This MF'ER is a sick FU%^.

kitten and puppy guilt, is the worst kind of guilt evah. Look at that face! Awww, FACE! kitten boodly ooer! kittensmuffmuffin who'sthe sweetkitten? who? yes,youisthesweetkitten! who'smy baybeh? who? thesweetkittenis! mooshapooshasweetieboon!
oops, I got lost in catspeak. the man is a scum. If anyone could look at that face, and "experiment" on it, you know he has a Heart of Stone, and should not be the ambassador to my ass, let alone this country! "You're never to old to learn... never to young to pray...it's never too late to learn...and hope for better days...."

[golddustdragon]

You know, if there was more of a voter turn out, then those people who hate Frist could have stopped it right there. Then he wouldn't be slandering the Democrats as Christian haters. In 2006, the goal of the sane people of the state Frist and Tom Delay represent is to oust these buggers.

[xxxmx]

after the 2000 election i swore i would move. after the 2004 election i swore i would move. if i don't get some sort of consolation prize in 2008 i will move. if only it wasn't sooo cold in canada, maybe europe? southern france? it can't be that bad over there...

and yes, i'll bash the states. this is apparently the promised land of evangelical conservatives. this is a fiefdom where the rich continue to stomp the poor. this is where over half of my neighbors wish to fade back into the dark ages. i hope they're happy here, because i'm sure as F not.

frist and that tool delay, that would be an excellent ticket there... hell wouldn't freeze over, it would simply shoot an elevator straight to the white house.

and you were speaking of josef mengele, the 'angel of death' at auschwitz... surprising yet appropriate comparison.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by xxxmx

. . . and you were speaking of josef mengele, the 'angel of death' at auschwitz... surprising yet appropriate comparison.

That would be the one

[golddustdragon]

Frist experimented on cats and Delay comes from the exterminating business. This surely calls for a Nazi comparison. I mean, Zyklon B. Enough said.