American Politics Thread 2013: I'm a cool Rodham grandma in the USA

otm

I don't often quote Chait but:

But, as some Republicans have correctly noted, if the majority can constantly threaten a rule change to break a filibuster, then you might as well change the rules. The Republicans are right about something else, too: A world in which 50 senators can confirm a lifetime judicial appointment could one day have frightening ramifications. The general logic of abolishing the filibuster is that the majority party ought to be able to enact its program, and if they go too far, voters can install a new government to undo it. That rationale does not apply to judges who serve until they die and can rewrite the law however they choose.

Ideally, the Senate would find some mechanism that would be strong enough to allow the minority to block unusually extreme judges from the bench, but weak enough to prevent the minority from issuing a total blockade on even qualified judges. That would require the creation of some sort of creative power-sharing arrangement that gives formal definition to the devilishly ill-defined concept of “advice and consent.” But the trend in American government has been that power does not get shared, and instead flows to whichever party has the will to seize it. Senate Republicans have seized new powers by imposing a judicial blockade on the D.C. Circuit, and the only available Democratic response appears to be seizing back more power still.

Haven't seen a lot of defenses for the lifetime appointment thingie recently.

congress should vote anonymous

congressional coked up international party bro photo album http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/trey-radel-international-man-of-mystery

lol at misidentifying cambodia as colombia

who even gives a shit what country were in wooooooo *shotguns local beer*

idk dudes that looks like some booze-shaming to me

"this guy was nailed for an 8 ball, here are some pictures of him with beer" uhh

the partying around the world thing captures a certain type so perfectly

Second comment on that article: "Congressman Dudebro (R-SPRIIIIIIIING BREEEEEEEAAAKKK!)"

combined w the whole does coke but votes for drug testing food stamp recipients really paints a picture

who even gives a shit what country were in wooooooo *shotguns local beer*

― lag∞n, Wednesday, November 20, 2013 2:32 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

^

^^^

well yeah, he's a sick hypocrite. that's not really my point.

your point is some generalized shame shaming ignoring the context already provided by yours truly, shameful imho

he shouldn't be in jail for buying the 8-ball, neither should anybody

he should not have voted for the drug testing for public assitance either

guy likes to party, is rightwing asshole, idk, seems like a matter for florida voters to mull over in their widsom, not the courts (which have been hilariously lenient as it happens, compared to those similarly charged [also not pictured here])

was he actually leniently charged for a first offense w personal use qualities, doesnt seem like it, like im sure people have gotten worse but it seems pretty normal that you wouldnt get locked up or anything for a first possession offense

that part i don't know, but i doubt he had his door kicked in. as i read it he was not even cuffed.

One reason I never did cocaine was the firm belief that, if I ever got caught, I would get thrown up underneath a jail. Many of my white friends did not have this same concern, including 2 who were dealing pills out of their dorm room (which was within 100 yards of an elementary school, oops). That story didn't end happily.

How did it end?

They threw up in jail

Which is even worse than throwing u0p anywhere else, b/c ur in jail

DJP, was that around '96? I think I know the two people you mention.

arcane Beltway bullshit no one outside...talk show green rooms cares about

board descrip

One reason I never did cocaine (cept til way too late, twice) was Fleetwood Mac

you guys there is still time

DJP, was that around '96? I think I know the two people you mention.

hahaha yes it was

hello world, you are tiny

I would rather chew coca leaves than snort cocaine.

thats ridiculous, someone put a lot of work in to turn those leaves into powder

(the story ended with them getting busted, threatened with a huge prison sentence due to their proximity to said elementary school unless they gave up their suppliers, and I believe them getting kicked out of school for a year, if not expelled)

if we are thinking of the same guys, they were suspended and returned the next year

kicked out of harvard for a year, ruff stuff

punishment was a year at yale

18 months in the hole (cornell)

That sounds likely to me; I graduated in '95 and heard about a good chunk of this stuff secondhand

most interesting reaction was my wife's (then girlfriend) who used to borrow sinus medication from one of them and was freaking about what it was she'd actually been taking

drug buddies always seem to shrink the size of the world

"wow, my sinuses feel reeealllyy gooood!"

wow this is the best sinus medication ive ever taken
cleared them all up huh
no

wow i'm a bleeding dpcuhebag suddenly cool

If you get expelled from Yale or Harvard don't you end up in Princeton

this dances music sounds god

Senate Democrats Poised to Block Filibusters of Presidential Picks

“We’re not bluffing,” said one senior aide who has spoken with Mr. Reid directly and expects a vote on Thursday, barring any unforeseen breakthrough on blocked judges.

...

Mr. Reid has said he supports keeping intact the minority party’s ability to filibuster controversial Supreme Court nominees.

Let the good times roll!

Dumb question: if the rules can be changed, what's to stop anyone from changing the rules back?

Senator on the radio had a good point. Right now, the 67 needed to break a filibuster is arbitrary. He pointed out how there's nothing stopping a majority party from making that number an equally arbitrary and even harder to break 80 or 90 (for hyperbole's sake). So he said that for better or for worse, 51 - a simple majority - would at least be consistent and fair. When asked by the interviewer how he would feel if Republicans used the same power to override a filibuster and push through a Supreme Court justice who would upset the court's relative balance, he basically called it tough medicine, a lesson to be learned that elections have consequences, and that anyone voting for Republicans shouldn't be surprised to see them voting like Republicans. There's something to that.

They can change the rules back, but there doesn't seem to be much of a reason for the majority to empower the minority.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Republicans will further change the rules to include filibuster on Supreme Court nominees. I really don't know why Reid would shy away for that now while he has the chance.

Reid is shying away on the Supreme Court nominee as part of typical Democrat "reasonable adult" standard. Invariably, just as the Republicans broke the Gang of 12 Rules, they will do whatever they want that is in their own best interests when/if they control the Senate

Speaking of control of the Senate, the Dems's Senatorial Campaign Committe is getting worried. Here's part of an email they sent (obviously this to try to raise more funds but still...)

Nate Silver calls North Carolina the “tipping point state in the Senate battle” and says it is the GOP's “best option to…[win] a 51-49 Senate majority.” And this is alarming: a wave of attacks from the Koch brothers has shrunk North Carolina Democrat Kay Hagan’s polling lead from 15 points to just two.

Now, the Kochs are going for the kill by launching “one of their largest ad buys to date” to take the lead there and across the country. Early attacks of this size are unheard of -- they’re funneling $2 million into North Carolina ALONE.

vote with your dollars, people, it's all that counts

Reid should change the rules to make it illegal for the Republicans to control the senate. Problem: solved!

Honestly, if they just made filibuster-ers stand there and babble like they did in the good ol' days, I think we'd not only see fewer filibusters, we'd also weed out some of the weaker-hearted politicians, who'd keel over on the floor mid-babble. Wouldn't that be an easier rule to change? What is the argument against once again forcing people to stand up or shut up? Is the argument that that would be ... too hard? Too inconvenient? At the very least, we might get another cable channel out of it.

86 presidential nominees filibustered prior to 2009, 82 since? nice

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQv_vgcvqiM