US POLITICS: AMERICANS, PLEASE WELCOME YOUR NEW PRESIDENT... SCOTT BROWN!

That Yglesias post is from yesterday, no?

but i understand how PISSED OFF he & the rest of the progressive caucus must be right now--essentially the senate (and the massachusetts democratic party) has birthed a wussy, moderate bill and lain it at the feet of house democrats and said "pass this... or else"

and remember, JFK didn't deserve to get his head blown off.― Rage, Resentment, Spleen (Dr Morbius), Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:58 PM (47 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

lol wut

But Justice Stevens and the dissenters said the majority was ignoring the long-understood rule that the government could limit election money from corporations, unions and others, such as foreign governments. "Under today's decision, multinational corporations controlled by foreign governments" would have the same rights as Americans to spend money to tilt U.S. elections.

Someone posted this on /. without a source. Is it true?

it's funny that we got this decision 2 days after Morbs said the SCOTUS would never overrule Roe.

Oh, and brace yourselves: Stevens might well retire this year.

sometimes I wonder if the Supreme Court justices plot to shorten each others' lives

like "oh man, gotta outlive Scalia, maybe I should set some boobytraps in his office"

Stevens might well retire this year.

no problem, i'm sure scott brown will vote for whatever nice moderate member of the federalist society obama nominates.

Nuclear option-> Healthcare Reform = (Dems grow balls + Give millions health insurance) = Scare + intimidate Repubs/Impress Dem voters

Stevens might well retire this year.

no problem, i'm sure scott brown will vote for whatever nice moderate member of the federalist society obama nominates.

― hellzapoppa (tipsy mothra), Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:01 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

The Supreme Court is a different ball of wax though. Somehow Clinton got Ginsburg through, and Bush got Alito through with no problems. As long as the candidate doesn't embarrass themselves, they get confirmed.

yeah i was being flip, although at the moment, who knows? republicans seem sure they're about to reconquer the universe, they might not be in a mood to do anything at all. assuming they make real gains in the midterms, then their entire focus will shift to drumming obama right out of the white house.

why on earth would you count on that now

Somehow Clinton got Ginsburg through,

But remember: Clinton actually called Orrin Hatch and asked him which nominee least offended him (Hatch). He actually screened Ginsburg and Breyer with the GOP minority.

which I find incredible. Did he just not research her at all?

Also, Clinton totally half-assed the nomination process.

The Supreme Court is a different ball of wax though. Somehow Clinton got Ginsburg through, and Bush got Alito through with no problems. As long as the candidate doesn't embarrass themselves, they get confirmed.

Clinton was bolder than Obama in practice if not in rhetoric imo. I can't imagine Obama even trying to pass something as watered-down as DADT. I'm no Clinton stan but I think there were some areas in which his liberal bona fides were pretty meaningful to him.

As long as the candidate doesn't embarrass themselves, they get confirmed.

lol putting a pube on someones coke doesnt fall under 'embarassment' I suppose.

which I find incredible. Did he just not research her at all?

― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, January 21, 2010 5:21 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark

my cynical guess would be that it is not really about ideology or jurisprudence but whether the opposition can find something juicy and base-happy to attack the nominee over.

yeah that's what I meant by not embarrassing yourself. Arguments about judicial ideology aren't enough to torpedo a candidate.

PS- The explanation I've always heard for the Thomas thing is that his "modern lynching" comment scared them off. Still surprising that he pulled it off (and that they didn't just reload with a different, equally conservative candidate).

oh wait it was "high-tech lynching" I think, which is more nonsensical.

Ginsberg, like Sotomayor, is a liberal who's Tough On Crime.

"lol"

http://www.businessinsider.com/big-banks-have-already-figured-out-the-loophole-in-obamas-new-rules-2010-1

"haha yay"

totally thought that banner said "Clusterfuck"

the banks may be doing more to promote the idea of an activist government than any politician is capable of right now

kinda stupid for banks to be all "haha btw we already know how to get around your silly law! nyah!" in public, cuz won't that just bring the hammer down on them harder when it comes time to enact these regs...? plus the bad PR?

yeah but balance that against the need to reassure their investors: "don't worry folks, this gravy train will keep on rollin'!"

plus i think the banks figure that if the hammer hasn't dropped by now, there probably isn't really a hammer. and what are the odds that they're wrong?

id think regardless of loopholes the banks are betting on the GOP refusing to pass any legislation

looking like a good bet right about now

unfortunately

what balls look like: a partial view

seldom so proud to be a former iowan

ditto unfortunately.

where are you now, Eisbaer? IN right?

would like to see further displays of balls plz

the government could always just ignore the ruling, as well. They've done it a few times before.

NJ, John D.

Legislation will fix the problem (e.g. Lilly Leadbetter Act).

and i was dittoing "unfortunately" to shakey's assertion that banks have nothing to fear by being in-yer-face and fuck-you to all this bank reg tough talk from Obama today.

well, your winters are a little less grueling anyway.

would like to see further displays of balls plz

Boswell can be pretty goddamn rad. I have personal experience of dude goin' out of his way for his constituents. he has zero bigger-office ambitions afaik but as a dude he counts as a pretty solid dude imo.

it's funny that we got this decision 2 days after Morbs said the SCOTUS would never overrule Roe.

You are all Democrat, you poor, sad kid.

I'll be back after Blame Nader expiration day.

btw as a First Amendment absolutist I have some sympathy for SCOTUS' ruling, and am pretty sure that Hugo Black, who was second to none in defending the First Amendment, would have joined the majority; but this is a classic "originalist" quandary. Is the Constitution supposed to protect the powerless and those without access to the system, or everyone (including corporations)?

at this point, IF i stay politically aware/involved at all any more, i'm more likely to go the Clay Davis route (very easy perhaps, since i live in one of the most infamously crooked counties in the country) and just get in to get mine (and my family's) and leave the idealistic shit to the corny indie fuXors who'll learn their lessons the hard way.

this decision has fuck-all to do w/Roe. Republicans don't want anything to do with the personal & political repercussions of overturning Roe; it must, for them, remain permanently on the table. without it, they're kinda fucked. they'll restrict & restrict & restrict but there'll never be any serious effort to overturn; it would cost them one of their key issues.

The answer, I guess, is to send McCain-Feingold back to Congress and plug your ears and eyes come November (thank god I don't have cable).

nb the Democrats will always be there to help them restrict Roe even further, and none of their supporters will ever charge them so much as one dollar in contributions for it. for the partisans of both parties, Roe exists mainly as a rallying point; the substance of it is only interesting to extremists on either side. the particulars of it are tradable for votes & contributions.

that's why i generally don't care about culture war issues -- i care about money issues, and besides this filling the coffers of the worst elements of BOTH parties from bona-fide bad actors it will also keep the money flowing from the pro/anti-Roe folks (which i wouldn't be at all surprised if, like the Dems w/ HCR, the GOP would go all pussified if Roe's repeal was within inches of their grasp).

Legislation will fix the problem (e.g. Lilly Leadbetter Act).― Blue Fucks Like Ben Nelson (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, January 22, 2010 12:56 AM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I don't think this is possible, because it's a First Amendment issue, not an issue of a vaguely written law.

nb the Democrats will always be there to help them restrict Roe even further, and none of their supporters will ever charge them so much as one dollar in contributions for it. for the partisans of both parties, Roe exists mainly as a rallying point; the substance of it is only interesting to extremists on either side. the particulars of it are tradable for votes & contributions.

― Lee Dorrian Gray (J0hn D.), Friday, January 22, 2010 1:03 AM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

You know that it was one vote away from being overturned when Kennedy shocked everyone and flipped, right?

And you know Thomas and Scalia continually dissent and say it should be overturned?

So what is your fantasy, that the chairman of the RNC will call them and tell them to ignore their entire history on the Supreme Court?

It's an absurd, naive fantasy.

(which i wouldn't be at all surprised if, like the Dems w/ HCR, the GOP would go all pussified if Roe's repeal was within inches of their grasp).

― Did anybody here seen my old friend, Jason Sehorn? (Eisbaer), Friday, January 22, 2010 1:04 AM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark

if that was the case, why did Bush get flattened by his base when he nominated Miers because her anti-Roe bona fides weren't trusted?

Failing to nominate Justices that overturn Roe would be a BAD thing for the Republican party. The Evangelicals will not tolerate another Souter.

yeah Matt don't read me wrong - I believe in fighting for Roe at every turn, and it's why I holler at every single rhetorical dialing-back (Obama's "not one penny for abortion" line was a major "fuck you, buddy" moment for me) - but I do in fact believe that there would be heavy pressure from Repubicans who, behind closed doors & away from microphones & cameras, know that a western democracy without reproductive freedom is not in fact a country they want to try to govern

the rhetoric of anti-choice buys them votes & contributions; an actual no-choice landscape would be a nightmare for them imo