Today is an incredibly important day in the world of politics. It is the day that the right wing phreaks try to confirm William Pryor to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Attorney General from Alabama faces tough opposition and a potential fillibuster from the left unless the democratic leadership fails to show any backbone.

The US Court of Appeals is basically one step in the long line of appelate courts that ends with the Supreme Court of the United States. It is also among the busiest courts in the US, handling cases from Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. Justices Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer each came from one of the 12 circuits of the US Courts of Appeals.

So this is a very relevant position. Not only does a person in this post get to decide important cases, but this position is literally one step away from the Supreme Court itself. It would be unfair for my point to be, "Oppose Pryor's nomination", because I wouldn't want to force anyone to defend this, well, evil man who opposes reproductive rights and the Americans with Disabilities Act, advocates for the death penalty, criminalization of same sex relationships, and the fusion of church and state.

So I'll just go after the biggie. Church and state. And my point. There should be a federal law that states that when Republicans own all three branches of government, no one with religious affiliation can be nominated into any federal position. It's the only way to preserve the separation between church and state that we currently rely on. I know it's harsh, but it is of vital importance that the right wing not be able to throw out every tenet that our constitution is based on. And we can't trust them to abide by the constitution any more than we can expect Union Carbide to care about thousands of citizens of Bhopal, India.

Now I grew up in a religious house. I have to admit that my religious upbringing has been a powerful force in shaping many aspects of my character. It has instilled in me the tendency to care about people who are sick, poor, and hungry. It has led me to try to look out for Dog's creations. But what led me to turn my back on the church, and organized religion oin general, was the realization of the hypocrisy inherent in it. Here you have William Pryor, for whom it isn't enough to have strong religious leanings (he's a very devout catholic). He must also force the country to live by his religious doctrine. This is precisely why we HAVE separation of church and state. It is designed to prevent one dominant religious force from hijacking the country. Look to the Middle East for examples of religious zealotry run amok, and ask yourself how far off we are if our administration is nominating people like William Pryor.

So the bottom line is that the laws of this nation gave Bush the right to nominate whoever he wants. But since he is so intent on undermining the spirit of the constitution and violating the very rules within, I feel that we need to take a more active role in protecting this country from him. Since Bush insists on nominating individuals who can't understand that your religious ideals are YOUR OWN and not to be forced onto others, it is time that we strip him of the responsibility. If baby can't play with the toy as it was meant to be played with, baby can't have the toy.

So what, exactly, are you proposing? Impeachment? As much as I hate to admit it, in accordance with the laws of this land Bush has not commited any act worthy of impeachment. There is no call for removal from office; if you want to take baby's toy away, I suggest you vote against him in the next election.

And speaking of elections, and the right wing controlling all three houses, need I remind you that the way in which the government is currently structured represents the desires of the majority of this country? We have had mid-term elections, and the populace showed no, repeat NO, signs of desiring a regime change. Whether or not the majority of people are happy with our current government is irrelevant; our system is based on elections, and if people don't vote, then they aren't represented. I'm not saying "If you don't vote then don't complain"; people should still voice dissent any way they wish. But our voter turn out is embarassing, and if we as activists spent more time convincing people to get out and vote, we might see some change.

Now on to the constitution. Perhaps our rights are being trampled, perhaps the division of church and state is becoming more and more grey, this could all be true. But the constitution is not written in stone; rather, on paper. It has been ratified many times to represent the desires of various administrations, and lest we forget, was written to be rewritten every decade, which it never has been. Plus, in the mid 1800s, a lawyer by the name of Lysander Spooner proved the constitution to be an invalid document, stating that by the laws it itself set up, it was only valid to those who signed it, all of whom are long dead. Therefor, as a legal document, the Constitution is null and void.

But the constitution is an idea, and as all ideas it is ever changing. Just because you don't agree with the direction it is taking doesn't mean a crime is being committed. The importance of the constitution, based on the document itself, should be evaluated based on its relevance and, when necessary, altered to evolve or adapt to our changing times.

Ok, this has been a rather multi-pointed point/counterpoint, so I will close where you opened: William Pryor. I'm afraid that, in only our second point/counterpoint, we may have hit a stalemate, because I can't find much positive about him; in fact, yesterday the Human Rights Campaign publicly announced their opposition to his nomination. I guess, in this case, we will have to agree to, er, agree.