home

John Barrasso Named Senator For Wyoming

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 07:17:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Conservative surgeon John Barrasso will be the Acting Senator for Wyoming, replacing Craig Thomas:

Barrasso, 54, will serve in Thomas' place until the beginning of 2009. He said on his application that he also intends to then run in a November 2008 special election to serve out the remainder of Thomas' term, which ends in 2013.

His views come as no surprise:

"I believe in limited government, lower taxes, less spending, traditional family values, local control and a strong national defense," the orthopedic surgeon and state senator from Casper wrote in his application.

He said he has "voted for prayer in schools, against gay marriage and have sponsored legislation to protect the sanctity of life."

< On The Edwards-NY Times Story: Left Blogs Pulling Punches? | Gitmo Not Closing Yet >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    John Barrasso Named Senator For Wyoming | 36 comments (36 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I wonder... (none / 0) (#1)
    by RustedView on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:04:43 PM EST
    how bad the other two on the list had to have been.

    thanks for commenting (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:11:00 PM EST
    one request: your blog name is accessible in your user name when you comment. Please don't post it again at the end of your comment.  Thank you.

    Parent
    What's the background? (none / 0) (#3)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:12:43 PM EST
    What happened to Thomas?

    They searched... (none / 0) (#4)
    by desertswine on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:28:12 PM EST
    everywhere for a replacement and finally found Barrasso somewhere in the fifteenth century.

    Oxymoronic senators..... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:39:47 PM EST
    Limited govt....sounds good.

    Lower taxes...I'm with ya.

    Less spending...excellent.

    Traditional family values...umm, not the job of a limited govt., thats the job of the family.

    Strong national defense...why do I think he really means offense?

    Voted for prayers in schools and against gay marriage...again, this ain't limited government.

    Verdict...another senator so full of soup he doesn't know what he stands for.

    That's exactly (none / 0) (#6)
    by Peaches on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:47:53 PM EST
    What I was thinking.

    Parent
    Picking nits... (none / 0) (#7)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:58:51 PM EST
    Voted for prayers in schools and against gay marriage...again, this ain't limited government.
    The gvt now controls prayers in school, ie., it says you can't have them. I'm pretty sure this guy's for removing that gvt control, ie., more limited gvt.

    The rest of your post seems about right...just another pol.

    Parent

    wrong nit (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Sailor on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:36:03 PM EST
    The gvt now controls prayers in school, ie., it says you can't have them.
    Nope, it says the gov't can't sponsor them. 'As long as their are math tests there will be prayer in schools.'

    And being against gay marriage is being for denying rights to Americans.

    Parent

    When a politician... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:07:37 PM EST
    starts talking about "prayer in schools", they aren't talking about 5 minutes of quiet reflection time for each child to pray, meditate, what have you, as they see fit.  I'd support that.

    They're talking about the father, the son, and the holy spirit, amen...imo.  The bedrock of our republic forbids that as a limit on government endorsement of religion.  

    If Barasso is proposing 5 minutes of non-denominational quiet reflection time, I apologize...but I've got my doubts.

    Parent

    Are you sure about this? (none / 0) (#12)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:31:02 PM EST
    They're talking about [compulsory or only] the father, the son, and the holy spirit, amen...imo
    If so, I'm with you.

    If not - if he's talking about

    5 minutes of non-denominational quiet reflection time
    that sounds a lot like freedom to me.

    Parent
    Me too.... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:33:59 PM EST
    We're on the same page.

    Parent
    How does it work? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Peaches on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:12:04 PM EST
    voting for prayer in schools, I mean.

    Anyone, I would think, still can pray in school as long as it doesn't disturb others of get in the way of the educational objectives in public school (which ever they are). Now, I would be with him if he voted to limit the reach of public schools, so he can start a school for his community that allows whatever form of prayer his and his fellow citizens in the community approve of. But, making prayer a part of curriculum for a compulsory public school for an entire nation. That is government overreach, imo.

    Parent

    I agree, (none / 0) (#11)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:26:51 PM EST
    if he's saying we must have prayer as a part of the curriculum, that's more gvt, not less.

    However, if he's for removing existing gvt regulation that precludes prayer, that seems like less gvt to me.

    Parent

    LOOKS LIKE WERE ALL IN AGREEMENT (none / 0) (#15)
    by Peaches on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:36:28 PM EST
    :o)

    Parent
    wait a minute (none / 0) (#17)
    by Peaches on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:38:57 PM EST
    What existing gov't regulations?

    I think I agree with Sailor on this one. The gov't cannot sponsor prayer, however, it doesn't prohibit it.

    Parent

    Hey, we (I, for sure) may learn something today! (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:56:57 PM EST
    From the Freedom From Religion Foundation:
    Can't Students Pray in Public Schools Now?

    Individual, silent, personal prayer never has and never could be outlawed in public schools.

    The courts have declared government-fostered prayers unconstitutional - those led, required, sanctioned, scheduled or suggested by officials.



    Parent
    That settles that (for me at least)... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 05:01:28 PM EST
    Thanks sarc...

    The issue seems clear as day to me now, and without controversy...kids pray away, teachers stay out of it unless it disrupts the other kids educations.

    What also seems clear to me is that politicians are out to confuse the issue and make it a controversy...split us all back up into one of two teams arguing about the little stuff.  While, obviously, winning some cheap votes.  Across the board, R and D.

    Parent

    We're getting there.... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:45:58 PM EST
    How about government cannot sponsor prayer, nor can government forbid it.  The teacher, as the government agent on the scene, cannot lead a prayer nor can they stop a kid from praying.  Everybody wins except those who demand others pray and those who demand others don't. Let freedom ring...

    If there is a regulation against prayer, its not enforced.  At least nobody ever stopped me from praying for the bell to ring to get out of Algebra:)

    Parent

    Right (none / 0) (#20)
    by Peaches on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:53:30 PM EST
    I am not aware of any government regulation that forbids individuals from praying in school, unless the prayer is disruptive to the educational objective (and even in that case, I am not sure if the gov' forbids or can forbid a disruptive prayer)

    Parent
    Wow kdog (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 04:35:33 PM EST
    If there is a regulation against prayer, its not enforced.  At least nobody ever stopped me from praying for the bell to ring to get out of Algebra.
    I always thought of myself as unreligious, even when I was in grade school growing up in a kosher house.

    Little did I know then how deeply religious I was 'cause I prayed on a daily basis for the bell, both in public school and hebrew school.

    Parent

    factually and legally incorrect (none / 0) (#23)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 04:41:24 PM EST
    Individually you can pray all you want in school. The "government" isn't against that. What the  US Constitution forbids is state sponsered prayer. Quite a difference.



    Parent

    Read the rest of the thread. (none / 0) (#24)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 04:49:03 PM EST


    Parent
    I missed both you and Sailor (none / 0) (#25)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 04:55:25 PM EST
    at 14 on this. No slight was intended to either of you.



    Parent

    All good. (none / 0) (#26)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 04:57:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Kdog (none / 0) (#35)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 04:56:57 AM EST
    I didn't realize you were a limited gov't guy.  Against socialized healthcare, excellent.  Second amendment rights, super!  States rights, Stupendous!  

    Parent
    I'm with ya... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 08:11:00 AM EST
    on the 2nd amendment and states rights.

    Health care, otoh, is a toughie.  Tell me how we can make healthcare affordable and accessible to all without government involvement...I'm all ears. My bleeding heart takes over when it comes to people suffering.

    Don't worry too much though Wile...Insurance company lobby dollars talk and sick people take a walk.  No change on the horizon. The status quo is safe.

    Parent

    Well, (none / 0) (#10)
    by HeadScratcher on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:19:08 PM EST
    It is a democracy. If this is what Wyoming wants, this is what it gets. And it's not as if they replaced Barbara Boxer with this guy. It's status quo. Move on, nothing to see here...

    he was appointed, not elected (none / 0) (#16)
    by Sailor on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:37:07 PM EST


    Parent
    last time i checked, (none / 0) (#18)
    by cpinva on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:41:25 PM EST
    The gvt now controls prayers in school, ie., it says you can't have them. I'm pretty sure this guy's for removing that gvt control, ie., more limited gvt.

    the first amendment controlled prayers in public schools. but you know, i'm sure that there "establishment" clause was just a joke. unfortunately, those pointy heads in the USSC were dumb enough to take it serially.

    out of curiousity, how does he feel about the scientific theory of species evolution, vs. the faith-based story of creation?

    It's status quo. Move on, nothing to see here...

    i think that was more or less the point: wyoming hasn't changed, since the pleistocene era.

    He will not be ACTING Senator (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 05:03:21 PM EST
    He will be a full-fledged Senator.

    Prayer in school (none / 0) (#29)
    by B on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 12:08:33 AM EST
    Since 2003, Texas has required all public school students to recite daily the US pledge of allegiance and the Texas pledge of allegiance followed by a minute of silent prayer, meditation or reflection. In 2007 the legislature added "God" to the Texas pledge.  Because Republicans  as a class are allergic to accountability, apparently none of them have ever visited any classrooms to observe the myriad ways children of all ages all too often find to disrespect this fiat. Students know there is little or no consequence for shouting the pledges, refusing to participate, or screwing around during the silent time.

    Interesting.... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 08:54:15 AM EST
    I remember the pledge of allegiance being recited every morning here in NY, but it was not required.  When I got to high school I would say the pledge but skip the "under god" portion.  Some kids didn't stand, others would stand and not recite.

    I think if there was a consequence for not participating the Texas law would be unconstitutional.

    Parent

    Appointment Unconstitutional (none / 0) (#30)
    by john horse on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 07:18:31 AM EST
    In case anyone cares, the way the Wyoming fills its Senate vacancy is unconstitutional.  Accoring to Vikram Amar at Findlaw "the (Seventeenth) Amendment, by its terms, creates potential appointment power only in Governors; it does not authorize legislatures to participate in such appointment decisions, beyond simply determining whether the Governors should be allowed to make temporary appointments or not."  In other words the State legislature cannot dictate that the Governor must chose between three candidates selected by the central party committee of the former incumbent.
    i think the argument would be (none / 0) (#32)
    by cpinva on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 10:59:06 AM EST
    that the wyoming legislature did empower the executive to make the temporary appt., via the enabling legislation. the 17th amendment doesn't dictate the terms of that legislation, it only empowers the legislature to make it. it could easily be asserted that the substance of that legislation is left to the state's legislative branch.

    i think mr. amar's argument rests on a foundation consisting of sand, not very solid.

    Parent

    17th Amendment (none / 0) (#34)
    by john horse on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 12:37:02 PM EST
    With all due respect I disagree.  The 17th Amendment says "Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct."  The 17th Amendment means what it says.  The power to make appointments clearly rests with the executive.  There is nothing in the 17th Amendment that allows the state legislature to constrain or dictate the appointment made by the executive.  At the very least the legislature is sharing in the power to make the appointment and this is not a shared power according to the 17th Amendment.

    Parent
    The appointment itself is not necessairly (none / 0) (#33)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 11:36:15 AM EST
    unconsitutional. The dication of additional requirements to be a senator would be. But the governer can honor the wishes of the legislature if he wants to. OTH, if chose not too, the probably the only consequences would be political, as I agree the legislature cannot add to the requirments.



    Parent

    John Barrasso Named Senator For Wyoming | 36 comments (36 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment