Inside the Republican Suicide Machine

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/19/2013 12:51:25 PM · #104

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

11/19/2013 09:28:34 PM · #105

Originally posted by Cory:

ha-ha

Well, she was uninsured before, so the ACA is still in keeping with the Hippocratic Oath's "do no harm" clause. :P

11/19/2013 11:11:45 PM · #106

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by Cory:
ha-ha

Well, she was uninsured before, so the ACA is still in keeping with the Hippocratic Oath's "do no harm" clause. :P

So her healthcare costs which includes her special needs son would be a whopping $280 a month. What a failure. I pay more than 4 times that for my healthcare. If that is all the savings that Obamacare care can offer the uninsured, why bother?

She says that she can not afford the $280 a month as a court reporter (median income 56,346 for her county) and I am sure she knows her budget best, but how much do people think healthcare should cost if 6% of her income is too much to spend ?

In 2010, the United States spent $2.6 trillion on health care, over $8,000 per American. But $3,360 a year for two people is seen as too much to pay for coverage.

P.S. Did anyone notice Rep.Trey Radel, Tea Party Republican freshman from Florida was busted buying cocaine? It makes his attempt to pass legislation the would allow the testing of food stamp recipients for drugs, seem a bit ironic.

Message edited by author 2013-11-20 00:04:46.

11/21/2013 04:16:15 PM · #107

Ah man, years ago when everybody was bitching about the Republicans and their threat of the "nuclear option" in the senate, who woulda thunk it would be the Democrats to actually do it.

This is what exasperates me the most about both parties and Washington in general. Back when it was the Republicans threatening the Dems were extemporizing that the action would only be slightly better than killing babies or cute kittens. Now, when it is in their own interest, it's what needs to be done.

And don't go off on the Republicans and their obstructionist agenda. That's not the point. The point is the duplicity and hypocrisy of our leaders. It happens to be the dems this time (and it happens to be worthwhile pointing that out on these forums since the majority are strident democratic kool-aid drinkers), but it could just as easily be the Republicans so don't think I'm choosing sides. I wouldn't want to be a member of either party these days.

Message edited by author 2013-11-21 16:16:51.

11/21/2013 05:10:17 PM · #108

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Now, when it is in their own interest, it's what needs to be done.

It is a real and rising issue. For the good of the country we need to get rid of the ability of the Senate to act as the land of pocket vetoes and no effort filibusters. Year over year the dead wood of special privilege has been built up as each party sought to wring maximum benefit from a temporary position of power (or resistance to power) until today's sorry state. What was supposed to be a deliberative body of congenial disagreement has devolved into a swamp choked with the deadwood of obstructionism.

How we can fix it when the only body that has the power to repair is the diseased body in need, is beyond me.

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG HSM for Nikon

11/21/2013 05:38:35 PM · #109

Good question.

I liked this opinion in the Washington Post about the danger of what has been done. Another nail in the coffin...

Washington Post Opinion

bohemka

Nikon D700

11/21/2013 06:08:56 PM · #110

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Jason, you often frame your arguments as though they are coming from a non-partisan, but I don't see how a true non-partisan would see this as a bad thing.

A lot of these people (on both sides) probably won't know what to do with their day now that blind, party-line filibustering has been removed from their to-do list. Good. Maybe they can learn to be more productive with their time.

11/21/2013 07:04:15 PM · #111

Originally posted by bohemka:

I'll quote the Post article to give you my answer...

Both parties have been guilty of delaying and blocking qualified judicial nominees of presidents from the opposing side, particularly for this important appeals court. We believe a filibuster should be rarely invoked. But now that it is not an option, the result is likely to be that the partisanship of Congress will seep increasingly into the judiciary, as presidents feel no obligation to search for balance or moderation in their nominations. As Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) warned before Thursdayâ��s vote, â��When we have the majority, when we have a Republican president, we put more people like Scalia on the court.â��

The impact of changing the rules in this way may be even more far-reaching. The Democratic action sets a precedent that a future Republican majority will use to change procedures when it gets into a political jam, rather than negotiate with Democrats. The logical outcome is a Senate operating more like the House, with no rights for the minority, no reason for debate and no incentive to cooperate. For those who view that as an improvement, we offer todayâ��s House as a counterargument.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/21/2013 07:20:38 PM · #112

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Now, when it is in their own interest, it's what needs to be done.

It is a real and rising issue. For the good of the country we need to get rid of the ability of the Senate to act as the land of pocket vetoes and no effort filibusters.

How about in the House, where the ~~ayatollah/Supreme Leader~~ Speaker now has a greater veto power than the President, since being given sole authority to decide whether any measure at all can be voted-on, allowing blocking of any legislation without any recourse by the Members.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/21/2013 07:26:56 PM · #113

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'll quote the Post article to give you my answer...

[i]... the result is likely to be that the partisanship of Congress will seep increasingly into the judiciary, as presidents feel no obligation to search for balance or moderation in their nominations.

Please remind me of the last time the Republicans nominated a Supreme Court Justice who typified "balance and moderation" -- seems like there's been a pretty steady stream of ideologues to me. Oh yeah, this rule change doesn't apply to those nominees, just others who could be running the courts and departments so often characterized as "failures" ... you know, if it's true large organizations can get by without heads, maybe we can get rid of those corporate CEOs and save the shareholders a bundle.

11/21/2013 09:28:08 PM · #114

Paul, raising questions like that is just evidence of Kool-aid drinking.

Maybe it would be helpful if we start with a list of justices you feel typify "balance and moderation" and we go from there.

Your list?

11/21/2013 09:40:47 PM · #115

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

We believe a filibuster should be rarely invoked. But now that it is not an option, the result is likely to be that the partisanship of Congress will seep increasingly into the judiciary, as presidents feel no obligation to search for balance or moderation in their nominations.

Keep in mind the last time this nominee was offered, he was so middle of the road that he was confirmed on a voice vote. In other words he was, as middle of the road as you get. The contention by Republicans was that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit did not need to have 3 new nominees, and that the bench should be maintained at 8 members, 3 short of the normal 11 members. Normally such reduction would require legislation, but the minority hoped to achieve this goal by filibuster.

here are the nominees:
Patricia Ann Millett: former assistant solicitor general during the Clinton and Bush administrations.
Robert L. Wilkins: A current District Court judge in Washington who was confirmed by the Senate on a voice vote in 2010.
Nina Pillard: A Georgetown professor who specializes in gender discrimination and workplace issues.

One of the three might be partisan and worth looking at. The other two are being held up purely on partisan political lines.

11/21/2013 09:48:04 PM · #116

The radical Pillard has argued:
In the pathmarking case, United States v. Virginia, Pillard wrote the Solicitor General's brief, filed by the Justice Department under President George H. W. Bush, challenging the men-only admissions policy of the Virginia Military Institute.

Pillard successfully defended the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) against constitutional challenge in another landmark case, Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs.[12] Pillard represented William Hibbs, a state employee who was fired when he sought to take unpaid leave to care for his injured wife under the FMLA. Pillard, together with the United States Justice Department during the administration of President George W. Bush, which intervened to defend the law, argued that state employees should be able to rely on the FMLA. In a decision by then-Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Court ruled for Hibbs and upheld the FMLAâ��s application to state employees as a valid exercise Congressâ��s constitutional powers.

In other noteworthy cases representing the United States, Pillard sought robust â��qualified immunityâ�� protection of law enforcement personnel against lawsuits, shielding officials from the burdens of litigation and liability for reasonable decisions even where, in hindsight, they turned out to be wrong.[14] She also successfully argued that the Constitution reserves the jury right in criminal cases to defendants charged with serious offenses.

In short, she is the only objectionable nominee, and her most notable case work was undertaken on behalf of the Bush administration.

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG HSM for Nikon

11/21/2013 10:43:58 PM · #117

BTW, I wasn't knocking Paul for suggesting that Republican presidents nominate conservative justices. I think we all understand that happens. I was knocking him for not neutralizing the statement to include the idea that Democrat presidents nominate liberal justices. I hope we understand that happens too.

I found a really interesting study (linky) which ranks justices from 1937 to 2006 from most conservative to most liberal. Let's arbitrarily define justices who qualify as "typifying balance and moderation" as having no worse than a 60/40 leaning one direction or the other. Of the 43 justices on the SCOTUS, only 13 would qualify. I didn't recognize any of the names (which makes me assume none or contemporary). The takehome is that all modern presidents have nominated justices who represent their ideals. It isn't only one party not playing fair.

The 13 moderate justices:
Burton .587 (Truman)
Minton .587 (Truman)
White .556 (Kennedy)
Stewart .555 (Eisenhower)
Jackson .546 (FDR)
Clark .534 (Truman)
McReynolds .520 (Wilson)
Frankfurter .512 (FDR)
Roberts, O. .505 (Hoover)
Sutherland .500 (Harding)
Blackmun .492 (Nixon)
Butler .481 (Harding)
Reed .467 (FDR)

EDIT: I looked up who nominated these justices and the most contemporary was nominated by Nixon in 1970 which is now 43 years ago. So in other words every justice nominated in the last 43 years is at least 60% "biased" in one political direction.

Message edited by author 2013-11-21 22:54:05.

bohemka

Nikon D700

11/22/2013 01:02:36 AM · #118

Jason, I still don't see this as a bad thing, nor do I see it as any unraveling of the checks and balances system or a slippery slope that will lead to the inefficiencies of the House. Quite the opposite.

A nominee still has to go through a stringent vetting process and judicial hearing, which is the true evaluation. All Senate ever had to do was open the door to let the process work, but recently (mostly) they have done nothing but waste everyone's time.

If Reid's words are to be believed:

Originally posted by Harry Reid:

In the history of the Republic, there have been 168 filibusters of executive and judicial nominations. Half of them have occurred during the Obama Administration â�� during the last four and a half years.
...
Further, only 23 district court nominees have been filibustered in the entire history of this country. Twenty of them were nominated by President Obama.

I couldn't care less which party is behind that behavior, or which party eliminated it by using the power they already had to eliminate it -- if this pattern of behavior is not deliberate obstructionism, what is it?

I can't see how removing pointless filibustering is anything but a good thing.

11/22/2013 01:09:43 PM · #119

Originally posted by bohemka:

I can't see how removing pointless filibustering is anything but a good thing.

Remember those words down the road when the Republicans control House, Senate, and Presidency. There will come a moment when they will declare that abortion is a crucial enough topic that we now need to invoke the "nuclear option" for not only judicial nominations, but also for standard bills. Or, instead, a Supreme Court nominee will come up and the Republicans will declare the anti-filibuster rule will now cover them as well. "We just want an up or down vote" is what they are going to say.

On that day I will assume your words will taste like ashes in your mouth.

I don't like obstructionism any more than you do. It a lame strategy. But by changing the Senate rules the democrats are essentially hunting a wolf with a tank (trying to limit the analogy slightly here). The wolf may have been killed (and that may be a good thing), but there will be much collateral damage done and that might cause more damage than the wolf did in the first place.

Hope I'm wrong.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/22/2013 01:52:28 PM · #120

Yesterday I heard a reporter ask a Republican Senator if, since the rules were so important to the integrity and function of the Senate, we could expect the Republicans to change the rules back if/when they get back into the majority. If not, given the current rhetoric, why not? Their threats of revenge make it seem as though they believe that two wrongs DO indeed make a right ...

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

11/22/2013 01:56:37 PM · #121

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I didn't recognize any of the names.

Are you SERIOUS? Felix Frankfurter doesn't ring a bell? Potter Stewart?

Stewart was a complex man in an interesting time. He's the one that said it's hard to define pornography, "but I know it when I see it". Unfortunately, the rest of the statement is usually chopped off: "and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." Sandra Day O'Connor replaced him on the bench.

Frankfurter served for 23 years, and was known as an outspoken advocate for judicial restraint. I'd have thought he'd be one of your heros :-)

scarbrd

Leica M10

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

11/22/2013 02:04:58 PM · #122

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by bohemka:

I can't see how removing pointless filibustering is anything but a good thing.

Remember those words down the road when the Republicans control House, Senate, and Presidency. There will come a moment when they will declare that abortion is a crucial enough topic that we now need to invoke the "nuclear option" for not only judicial nominations, but also for standard bills. Or, instead, a Supreme Court nominee will come up and the Republicans will declare the anti-filibuster rule will now cover them as well. "We just want an up or down vote" is what they are going to say.

On that day I will assume your words will taste like ashes in your mouth.

I don't like obstructionism any more than you do. It a lame strategy. But by changing the Senate rules the democrats are essentially hunting a wolf with a tank (trying to limit the analogy slightly here). The wolf may have been killed (and that may be a good thing), but there will be much collateral damage done and that might cause more damage than the wolf did in the first place.

Hope I'm wrong.

In it's current state of seeing who can out conservative each other and a general purge of the unpure, I don't see much of a chance of the Republicans controlling all 3 branches of government anytime soon.

Except for severe Gerrymandering, they would not even control the House. The Dems won the popular vote in the House by more than 1.5 million votes.

While they can do that in the House, they can't Gerrymander the Senate. And I don't yet see a candidate from the GOP, with the possible exception of Christie, having a real shot at the White House in the next cycle. Of course, he probably won't survive the GOP primary process to get a shot in the general election.

As long as the Tea Party keeps doing what they're doing and the GOP leadership allows it to continue, the Dems will be in pretty good shape. And I don't think that's necessarily a good thing. Without a credible opposition candidate the Dems can move further to the left.

It's ironic that the people that complain the loudest about how the government is too liberal really only have themselves to blame for offering up candidate so far to the right that there is no viable alternative. And the Dems aren't as liberal as they'd like people to believe.

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG HSM for Nikon

11/22/2013 04:14:37 PM · #123

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I didn't recognize any of the names.

Are you SERIOUS? Felix Frankfurter doesn't ring a bell? Potter Stewart?

Stewart was a complex man in an interesting time. He's the one that said it's hard to define pornography, "but I know it when I see it". Unfortunately, the rest of the statement is usually chopped off: "and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." Sandra Day O'Connor replaced him on the bench.

Frankfurter served for 23 years, and was known as an outspoken advocate for judicial restraint. I'd have thought he'd be one of your heros :-)

Seeing that Blackmun is the most recent justice and he was nominated the year BEFORE I was born...

bohemka

Nikon D700

11/22/2013 04:37:29 PM · #124

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The action they've taken was within their power the entire time, and I think they've used it at the right time. The sky-is-falling scenarios you're listing will not be a result of what this Senate has just passed. It specifically excludes the Supreme Court and bills. That is obviously the partisan outrage talking point, but you cannot look at this specific action and consider it a big deal. The judicial hearings still exist, the vetting process still exists, and the actual vote on nominees still exists. So it's not as if the rules have been thrown out the window. It's a thorough process that is now able to take its course.

You cannot introduce a slippery slope argument into this, as we're mid-slope here. Considering the recent absolute overuse of the filibuster and mockery made of the checks and balances system, I think it was the appropriate action.