Indefinite Detention? But I Have Soccer Practice at 4: U.S. Politics 2012

like there's "oh this will affect people a few-levels-removed down the bueraucratic chain" and then there's "actual irl people will get fucked the fuck up thanks to this particular thing"

Thre's actually people in the huffpo thread saying this is a good thing, they should be left to die because its their choice to do needle drugs. I mean... I just...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/a-telling-sign-scott-brown-comes-out-in-support-of-cordray-recess-appointment/2012/01/04/gIQA8r68aP_blog.html

too bad the rest of the country isn't massachusetts

only w/r/t politics obv

I get in arguments with Dems who, clawing for reasons to defend Obama, say "politics is the art of the possible." Jay Rosen interviewed by Greenwald:

I think it’s crippling sometimes to our own sense of efficacy in politics and media, if we assume that the media has all of the power to frame the debate and decide what consensus is, and consign things to deviant status. That’s not really true. That’s true under conditions of political immobilization, leadership default, a range for normalcy, but in ordinary political life, leaders, by talking about things, make them legitimate. Parties, by pushing for things, make them part of the sphere of debate. Important and visible people can question consensus, and all of the sudden break it. These spheres are malleable; if the conversation of democracy is alive and if you make your leaders talk about things, it becomes valid to talk about them.

And I really do think there’s a self-victimization that sometimes goes on, but... there’s something else going on, which is the ability to infect us with notions of what’s realistic is one of the most potent powers press and political elites have. Whenever we make that kind of decision — “well it’s pragmatic, let’s be realistic” — what we’re really doing is we’re speculating about other Americans, our fellow citizens, and what they’re likely to accept or what works on them or what stimuli they respond to. And that way of seeing other Americans, fellow citizens, is in fact something the media has taught us; that is one of the deepest lessons we’ve learned from the media even if we are skeptics of the MSM.

And one of the things I see on the left that really bothers me is the ease with which people skeptical of the media will talk about what the masses believe and how the masses will be led and moved in this way that shows me that the mass media tutors them on how to see their fellow citizens. And here the ‘Net again has at least some potential - because we don’t have to guess what those other Americans think. We can encounter them ourselves, and thereby reshape our sense of what they think. I think every time people make that judgment about what’s realistic, what they’re really doing is they’re imagining what the rest of the country would accept, and how other people think, and they get those ideas from the media.

http://ggdrafts.blogspot.com/2012/01/jay-rosen-on-political-possibility.html

click link, find out it's a poison pill in a much larger bill.

I've seen far worse rhymes.

too bad the rest of the country isn't massachusetts

thank god it isn't. brown's just triangulating his position b/c of warren, who came out crowing about the wonderfulness of the appointment that she really deserved. i've said it befor and i'll say it again, scott brown is a really nice dude but he is just so fundamentally ... opportunistic that it makes me question everything about his careeer.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/january_february_2012/features/what_if_he_loses034501.php

more on the needle exchange funding ban

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2011/December/21/needle-exchange-federal-funding.aspx

x-post

Will have to read this whole What if He Loses series later, but Lithwick's court piece leads with this:

For anyone considering the 2012 election’s importance to the future of the American judiciary, one fact stands out: next November, Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be seventy-nine years old. If a Republican wins the presidential election, he or she may have an opportunity to seat Ginsburg’s successor, replacing the Supreme Court’s most reliably liberal jurist with a conservative.

obama? seems like this is what happens when you elect a republican house majority.

the ban stood for 21 years, was lifted in 2008, now reimposed. what do you think happened in that time?

xp

the excuses just never end

for what, your high blood pressure?

For anyone considering the XXXX election’s importance to the future of the American judiciary, one fact stands out...

just fill this out every 4 years, DNC, and your work is done.

The current administration has not done much to restore the ideological balance of the federal appeals courts. For one thing, this was never Obama’s priority the way it was for Bush, his father, and Ronald Reagan. Obama, like Bill Clinton before him, has selected lower court judges more notable for their racial and gender diversity than their hard-left judicial orientation. And he also has failed to seat them in numbers comparable to the Bush record. Republicans have used Senate rules so effectively to block Obama judges that the judicial vacancy rate currently stands at eighty-four vacancies, with thirty of those designated “judicial emergencies” based on courts’ inability to manage caseloads. Filibusters, holds, and other arcane Senate rules have brought the system to the point where civil litigants may wait years to get into court. And the unprecedented waste of time that results from GOP obstruction of Obama judges has led some of the most interesting and thoughtful jurists, most famously California’s Goodwin Liu, to withdraw their names from contention.

Why have the Republicans been so much more effective at dragging the judicial branch rightward than Democrats have been in yanking it back? Focus, mainly. Since the Meese revolution of the mid-1980s, the GOP has been better at constitutional messaging, better at mobilizing the electorate, and better at laying out a judicial vision than liberals, who still seem to believe that unless the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade (or perhaps the Affordable Care Act), judges are not really a voting issue.

Libs need to wake the fuck up: they're as embattled now as when Ed Meese took over the Justice depts and saw post-New Deal judges everywhere.

Points off for none of these posts using the word "sheeple."

And yes the Dems filbustered a few Republican judicial nominees way back when and voted down at least 1 other, but when they were in the minority the bipartisan gang of 14 or something agreed to let votes on many Republican nominees go ahead. Surprise surprise, no current such agreement exists in the Senate.

And Obama will likely pick a moderate Dem to replace liberal Ginsburg, but at least that's slightly better than a right-wing Federalist Society type that a Republican will choose and get on the court.

nice mischaracterization of sound & impassioned opposition, Phil, it'll serve you well for making excuses when the Republicans are in power again

I was referring to Alfred.

SO THERE.

only "sheep" use "sheeple."

http://mediabreach.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Sheep-the-Man.jpg

Ram tough.

LOL

as i've said before there are plenty of legitimate reasons to want obama to win re-election; i'm suspicious of anyone who doesn't at least acknowledge that he's a monster

some very ugly Wisconsin-style "fuck it, we just do what we want" Republican hijinx last night in North Carolina

that's a terrible article btw but it's the one I got in the action alert mailing. what happened was, when they released three key Democrats were in the hospital, the NC GOP declared an emergency session for one a.m.. they called this session 90 minutes beforehand, refusing to say what it was going to be about, and then voted to override a veto they didn't like.

Greenwald responds to the Digby drone:

I can say this rather definitively: I wrote primarily about (war and civil liberties) issues during the Bush years and I never once heard any progressive — literally never once — say or even imply that these issues were receiving too much attention, that too much importance was being placed on them, that what really mattered was how Americans are treated economically and not those obscure foreigners or all this academic chatter about “due process” and checks on presidential power. But now, if you believe these issues are important, you’re some sort of fringe figure with strange, obscure boutique interests (or, to use this same liberal blogger’s phrase applied to me: you’re guilty of “civil-liberties-above-all-else” mania (is that an upgrade from what Joe Klein used to call me: “civil liberties extremist”?)). We learn from that same liberal writer (who is actually a Democratic Party operative) that “Liberalism is and has always been about intervention” (emphasis in original). Did anyone hear anything about that requirement from 2001 through 2008? My how times have changed.

But this is a necessary psychological tactic in order to reconcile steadfast support for a President who tramples upon values that one once claimed to find so critical: oh, those issues? War, due process, civil liberties, transparency, restraints on executive power. Eh – they aren’t that important. Someone who insists that the only legitimate means of political expression is to march behind President Obama and the Democratic Party is forced into that radical rearranging of priorities....

I actually don’t believe that the progressive reaction to this discussion is about Ron Paul. The same anger would be provoked by favorably comparing any political figure outside of the Democratic Party to President Obama on important issues, especially in an election year.... That, as I suggested in my first article, is viewed as the supreme sin, the one that must trigger oceans of denunciation and attack in order to deter similar acts of heresy.

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/05/democratic_party_priorities/singleton/

that whole argument was stupid. the matt stoller defenses of ron paul were historically pretty half-assed and a little insidery to boot ("he's a nice guy when doing house business!"), and that particular counter-argument about liberalism = intervention was just monumentally stupid. both of them managed to get the civil war totally wrong in different ways.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/04/397520/new-hampshire-gop-bill-mandates-that-laws-find-their-origin-in-1215-english-magna-carta/

This is strange

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

loooooooooooooooooooool

trolling surely

Hell, it's still more recent than trying to fit laws into the 10 commandments and so forth.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/06/news/economy/jobs_report_unemployment/index.htm?hpt=hp_t3

sorry, too lazy to find the economy thread, although I am interested in implications for the election if this trend continues

By all historical precedent, if employment improves significantly, Obama will wipe the floor w/any of these clowns

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/winner-of-iowa-caucus-still-in-doubt/

I don't think it will improve "significantly' by November: it will improve modestly, which is still good news for Bamster.

The voter, Edward True, signed an affidavit which stated that he had helped to count the vote after the caucus at the Garrett Memorial Library in Moulton.

... at this time he has declined to make any further statements, instead directing interested parties to his attorney, Justin Case.

By all historical precedent, if employment improves significantly, Obama will wipe the floor w/any of these clowns

otm

not that he couldn't beat them anyway, this is an historically terrible GOP field.

none of the candidates really seem as genuinely evil and crazy as giuliani but the 'pathetic' factor is definitely higher for this crop of candidates than '08.

haha okay I think Santorum, Paul, Gingrich, Bachmann and Perry can definitely compete with Giuliani in the "evil and crazy" stakes

Gingrich is a totally nasty dude

Perry actually executed an innocent man. Giuliani only WISHES he could.

IDK Guliani seemed like a genuine fascist-at-heart; most of these candidates are just jerks and bullies.

paul and bachmann are much crazier than rudy

haha okay I think Santorum, Paul, Gingrich, Bachmann and Perry can definitely compete with Giuliani in the "evil and crazy" stakes

i don't exactly disagree with this but rudy just brought this particular brand of genuine 'banana republic caudillo' craziness that made him seem like w's natural successor in '08. gingrich comes closest to that.

betting on a close election, but as Taibbi says it's the least consequential in our history, can't give a fuck.

You are as predictable as me saying that this is a consequential election because the Prez will nominate Supreme Court and other Federal judges