Does the party-line split on habeas corpus show a significant difference between the two parties?

[jpgray]

With three to four more Democrats in the senate, we'd have removed one of the most offensive subversions of this administration. That one party stood up to crap all over one of the most treasured standards of justice and another stood up to defend it seems like good evidence of a significant difference to me. Or to anyone whose concern about a police state goes beyond an obnoxious student who, despite his asshattery, was wrongly tasered. What say you, DU?

[Kajsa]

1. It sure does.

All the Democrats voted 'Yes'
We want it back!
It's not OK to illegally detain "suspects"
for years on end.

How many Repubs voted 'Yes' ?
Very few.

Liebermann voted 'No',
-no surprise there.

[jpgray]

2. I wish the "No" voters would offer an explanation.

I can't understand how this isn't a significant difference.

[Kajsa]

3. Yes!

Question,

" Why did you vote against restoring habeas corpus?"
" Why do you seek to abolish it?"

That's what I would like to hear.

[Old and In the Way]

4. I'd like a Republican voter to explain to me why they don't support

Habeas Corpus. Or Washington DC rights to representation. But, I suspect it is little to do with Republican reps actually heeding the demands of their Republican constituents and more to do with an abject fear of crossing George Bush and the RNC. I think towing the Party line is the only factor these Congressional Republicans consider in their vote calcculations. I'm betting that there is some serious oath to the Republican Party that a candidate must take that places Party interests before this country's interests.

They are truly a bunch of cowardly rubber-stampers who must have a closet full of issues that keep them from making rational voting decisions.

[baldguy]

5. Republicans are fascists.

No secret there.

[jpgray]

6. People have often asked me the difference between war mongers and war enablers

This vote shows one significant difference.