Friday, November 22, 2013

I am tranquil about this



Rule passed 52 to 48. Always so close. I heard the antique say, "Look at what's happened. Look at what's happened." Yes, Harry, we look at what has happened. I started paying attention to this sort of obstruction at the time of Clarence Thomas where observers notice this sort of bullshit began in earnest as stated policy of Democrats. Your Party did create this and now rues the situation of its own creation, or says it rues.  

What was that Clarence Thomas said back there about your Party's activities? 

It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.

That is what your Party did. That is who you are, what you have become.

Volkh is interesting but says what we're already thinking. This helps Republicans more than it does Democrats because Democrats are by far more obstructionist, the record shows that, just wait. The desperation is showing and this is most pleasing to observe.

Over 400 comments over there and they get interesting right off. 

Bill Bentnickel links Dr. Strangelove riding the bomb.



JohnSkookum 
• 6 hours ago

I am tranquil about this.
Number one, it's perfectly Constitutional. The houses of Congress set their own rules.
Number two, it is the most convincing evidence yet that the Democrats are completely panicked about losing the Senate in 2014. This would not be true if they held the House also, of course, but they don't, and they know that nothing they want is going to make it through both houses. Instead, they want to pack the courts as a final f**k-you on their way out the door they know is shortly to be held open for them.
Number three, the ongoing cataclysmic failure of Obamacare bids fair to wreck the Democratic Party for a generation. it is delicious to contemplate the kind of judicial nominees President Ted Cruz or Rand Paul or Scott Walker will now be able to get approved starting in early 2017. I hope they throw the filibuster in the trash altogether and start dismantling entire Cabinet departments willy-nilly.

I find them interesting comments. Just a few more:

curmudgeoninchief 
• 7 hours ago

In ancient days where there was ideological overlap between the 
Parties, where in the Senate the most liberal Republican was 
significantly more liberal than the most conservative Democrat, and so 
forth, the Senate could have political discussions and they would not 
usually have far-reaching ideological consequences. Everybody was an 
anti-Communist, some were more so than others. Everybody believed the 
US should have a strong military, some felt it needed to be stronger 
than others, etc. Today, there is essentially no overlap between the 
Parties in the Senate, or anywhere else for that matter. They are now 
two ideologically distinct political organizations, and the Democrats 
are by far the most militant.
This is the kind of move that a radical political organization filled with 
ideological extremists would pull to prove that results are all that matter, and they won't put up 
with anybody getting in their way. It is not an accident that this 
happened directly after the catastrophic "roll-out" of ObamaCare. The 
entire Democratic Party is reeling politically, and they are afraid 
that ideologically important nominations will be denied them because the
Republicans will now have no trouble finding 41 votes to filibuster 
anything they want to. Hence this move. The Revolution cannot tolerate
being stalled over political niceties; forward the Revolution!

monsterdog  Dan 

• 6 hours ago

I used to be a Dem/Liberal. I flipped right about 2000. It had been building awhile, but the catalyst in my particular case was the incredible outpouring of invective over the 2000 election results. I voted for Gore, but I couldn't BELIEVE the nasty, vicious garbage I heard coming from my own side mostly for the first time in politics. And the entire time since. I am not a Repub and have my issues with them and their ideology, but when I treat them respectfully I've never really been the target of viciousness. Not so with the Dems. All you've got to do to be called a racist is suggest that ObamaCare won't work. All you've got to do to be called a woman-hater is express a dislike for abortion. I was called a "scummy conservative shitbag" who "hates poor people" when I suggested that we couldn't keep running trillion dollar deficits and had to make some cuts. Funny...I don't feel like a shitbag, or particularly scummy for that matter.
That may be a result of the Dems being more vicious in general as a species or it may be that both parties got more vicious, or maybe it's just my personal experience. But the stuff I saw in the national media after the 2000 election, plus the stupidity I saw out of that segment of the political spectrum after 9/11 and a few other smacks in the face are why I left the Dems and will never return. I don't see myself ever being a Pubbie either, but I suppose it could happen if they can lose some of the more insane social con stuff.
But in my own personal view, yes, the Dems on the whole are much sharper, much more pungent, much more offensive in general, more in-your-face, more willing to blow up conventions of all kinds, more hostile to tradition, and generally more hostile to those they perceive as political adversaries. That's why the slashed tires in WI during the 2004 election. That's why the goons in military fatigues at the polling areas in Philly in 2008 and 2012. That's why members of the anti-gun party sometimes fire guns at Repub campaign headquarters the last few elections. That's why the Dem-aligned occupy movement shits on cop cars and trashes everything they see while the (mostly) Repub-aligned tea party cleans things up after demonstrations/protests. That's why Dems view an unborn child as a sort of wart to be removed from a womb while the very idea strikes a lot of Repubs as abhorrent (the one traditional social-con view I can get fully behind). There are a hundred other examples, and yes, there are a few that work the other way. But in my view, those are a pretty small minority and pretty weak tea overall.
I still participate in these threads because I got on usenet in about 1995 and have had the habit ever since, but I know some conservatives who just don't bother anymore. If you don't enjoy the insults and are seriously looking for real political discourse, there's not really any reason to I guess.

And many more like this. 

93 comments:

rhhardin said...

I will have to find my assigned college class paper "Should Rule 22 Be Abolished?"

I think it got a B.

That was back when a B meant something.

Michael Haz said...

Reid is salting the field with land mines while he plans his retreat.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

It is not 'packing' the courts to simply fill empty slots. Using this term in both hysterical and ahistorical.

test said...

Michael Haz said...
Reid is salting the field with land mines while he plans his retreat.


He's counting on (1) the media to enforce a double standard, (2) the unlielihood of Reps holding both the Senate and the Presidency concurrently, and (3) that Republicans aren't as cut-throat.

It's better this way. Dems were already achieving their goals by threatening this action resulting in "Gang of" acquiesence. Now reps will no longer feel constrained by a rule that doesn't constain Dems. If Reps win the presidency and pull into a 50-50 Senate say goodbye to Obamacare.

Michael Haz said...

Here's what Barack Obama said in a speech he gave in Texas earlier this month:

"We were able to reform our financial system so that the likelihood of taxpayer-funded bailouts is a lot less than it was. We were able to expand funding for young people going to college. We were able to expand national service for young people who want to serve. We fought long and hard for consumer protections that weren't there before.

As Lisa mentioned, we are remaking the courts. I know that we've got some lawyers here, and here in Texas sometimes people feel a little frustrated about the pace of appointments here in Texas. But you should know that in addition to the Supreme Court, we've been able to nominate and confirm judges of extraordinary quality all across the country on federal benches. We're actually, when it comes to the district court, matching the pace of previous Presidents. When it comes to the appellate court, we're just a little bit behind, and we're just going to keep on focused on it."


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said there wasn't a need to put more judges on the DC court since it has six "senior" judges that serve part-time. Five of those were appointed by Republican presidents.

McConnell states what the real objective in appointing new judges is all about. "The reason they want to put more judges on the D.C. Circuit is not because it needs them." He then quoted an administration ally who had acknowledged "the president's best hope for advancing his agenda is through executive action, and that runs through the D.C. Circuit."

See? This isn't about good judges or upholding law. It's about advancing an agenda. Barack Obama's agenda is a total transformation of the United States. If he cannot do it through laws rightfully passed by Congress, he will do it by issuing extra-constitutional Executive orders, which will be affirmed by the DC circuit court, which he will pack with radical judges.

test said...

AReasonableMan said...
It is not 'packing' the courts to simply fill empty slots. Using this term in both hysterical and ahistorical.


"While some may exult at the packing of the Court with yet another reliable extreme voice in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas"

Floor Statement (as delivered) of Charles E. Schumer On the Nomination of Judge Samuel Alito

January 31, 2006

Certainly Chuck Shumer is hysterical, but that is evidenced more by his ridiculous predictions than by his reference to it as "packing" the court.

Missed ARM's criticisms of Shumer and virtually every other leftist court commenter.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Our very own ambulance chaser is back, with an irrelevant observation.

test said...

Of course to ARM it's irrelevant that "packing the court" has in fact historically been used in the same context he's claiming is ahistorical. Logic, facts, consistency are all irrelevant to ARM, whose only function is prattling on with todays talking points not matter how wrong they obviously are.

Nice job demonstrating the complete lack of honesty or decency on the left.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

I thought and still think it unbecoming for a nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States of Amenrica to play the victim card but I'm kind of old-fashioned that way.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

Amenrica?

I really do need to get back to Mavis Beacon and learn something new for a change.

Or maybe I've had one of those mini-strokes and don't know it.

I sure hope so. That'd be kind of cool.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Marshall, I look forward to all future uses by you of Chuck Schumer as a historical authority. Your're not a partisan hack using whatever random fact comes to hand. You are a principled conservative.

Evi L. Bloggerlady said...

Pass the popcorn please.

test said...

AReasonableMan said...
I look forward to all future uses by you of Chuck Schumer as a historical authority.


I used him as an historical example, not an historical authority. How revealing that you cannot write a single comment without deception.

Your're not a partisan hack using whatever random fact comes to hand.

A principled libertarian.

But should I descend to become a lowly partisan hack we'd be at the same level so your sense of superiority will still be misplaced.

Why don't you explain to us again how historical examples are irrelevant to your charge of ahistorical terminology. Instead of answering you changed the subject. Giving up?

bagoh20 said...

Marshal, Give ARM a break. I mean what is he gonna say? The Democrats have stepped all over every standard they have claimed in the past, and every one ARM and most of the rest of us has held as a value worth preserving when things were reversed.

He now has two choices: admit error and and to being suckered by his party, or attack the opposition. He's choosing the easier route. Partisanship. Frankly, I think that's the hard road and it's going to get harder.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Marshal said...
A principled libertarian.


You are not a principled anything. Many people who post on this site are in fact principled conservatives. You are pure hack.
You are roughly equivalent to a much less successful version of John Edwards.

bagoh20 said...

ARM, if you are not embarrassed by what the Dems have been doing, then I may have overestimated you.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Bagoh, I am not a registered Dem or even much of a supporter. With the exception of immigration policy however I don't feel suckered by the current version of the party. I strongly disagree with both the Dem and Repub parties on immigration, but if anyone is getting suckered on this issue it is the Repub supporters. The Dems are frighteningly upfront about their goals.

virgil xenophon said...

Michael Haz @9:14/

All of it in a nut-shell..

bagoh20 said...

There is now a set of videos out there on nearly every position the President or Harry Reid has ever taken showing them saying exactly the opposite thing at different times with great conviction. You won't find that with Republicans to anywhere near the same degree.

bagoh20 said...

ARM, what do you think the Republicans intend to do, that they are being deceptive about?

test said...

AReasonableMan said...
You are pure hack.


Your comments belie any ability to analyze anything.

Why don't you further explain your original accusation in light of the facts instead of distracting with irrelvant arguments you can't even support? Do you think your idiocy goes unnoticed if you just double down on stupid long enough?

test said...

bagoh20 said...
He now has two choices


You omitted a few. Other options:

#3 Shut the F up.
#4 Get smarter.
#5 Grow up.
#6 Try.

bagoh20 said...

I don't vote for Dems anymore, although I'm still a registered lifelong Dem., but I'm embarrassed. Not as a Dem., because I don't consider myself one, but as an American who votes in it's leadership and has such a dishonest set of incompetents right now in the highest offices of the land. We all look like fools.

What I like about being a Democrat is the literature I get. It convinces me in no uncertain terms to vote against them every time.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

bagoh20 said...
ARM, what do you think the Republicans intend to do, that they are being deceptive about?


The base of the party hates immigration reform, the financial elites/backers want it because it suppresses wages. At some point someone is going to get screwed. It seems unlikely that it will be the financial backers.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Blogger Marshal said...
You omitted a few. Other options:

#3 Shut the F up.
#4 Get smarter.
#5 Grow up.
#6 Try.


Aaaawwwwww. Who's getting a little testy.

Fr Martin Fox said...

It's a sad day, because the one monument that needs to erected in Washington is to the Filibuster.

Whether the Republicans were "fair" or "reasonable" is not terribly important. The goal posts have been shifting for years, so complaining that they've moved since Obama got there is dishonest.

The notion that there's no remedy for a misused filibuster is simply, and obviously wrong.

It took 41 Senators to sustain a filibuster; and those Senators can all be pressed by constituents. While it's theoretically possible to have 41 Senators who are not up for re-election, or who are so secure that nothing they say or do will get them in trouble with their voters, that's not what happens in practice.

So the remedy available to Mr. Reid was always to keep having cloture votes, and focus LOTS of attention on the mean Republicans who kept opposing cloture. And then wait for expressions of public outrage to roll in.

And wait.

And wait.

Of course, Obama had an alternative: he could have named judges who were more "reasonable"--which is precisely what Reid and Co. said was Bush's remedy when they filibustered his nominees--for the very same court.

While it's a sad day, I think this only hurts the GOP in the short term, if at all. Yes, Obama will get a bunch of nominees through.

But this sets lots of other things in motion:

1. This makes a GOP takeover of the Senate more likely, because there is a strong element of the electorate that doesn't want anyone to have too much power. Since this gives more power to Obama in the short term, this makes already vulnerable Senate Dems just a bit more vulnerable.

2. The House GOP can't rely on the filibuster to kill things; they'll have to do it themselves. That means the House will be even more entrenched. And, because of gerrymandering, they will be harder to dislodge.

3. There are other tools the GOP can use to slow things down. They will now use them.

4. The Dem argument that everything would be so much rosier if only the GOP wouldn't be so obstructionist doesn't work very well against the backdrop of the unending failures of Obamacare.

5. If the filibuster is wrecked entirely, then Dems better pray hard that a Republican doesn't win the White House. Because then the dam really breaks. The Republicans might have wrecked the filibuster themselves, out of ambition; but this way, it was the Dems who did it to themselves.

test said...

AReasonableMan said...
Who's getting a little testy.


Just as accurate as Using this term is both hysterical and ahistorical.

The first step is setting reachable goals for yourself. Start by shooting for 50% accurate.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Marshall, isn't there some used car dealer or crooked property developer that you could be sucking up to? There are people out there who could really use your particular brand of services.

test said...

AReasonableMan said...
There are people out there who could really use your particular brand of services.


Does it bother you to realize you can't say the same about yourself?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Marshal said...
Does it bother you to realize you can't say the same about yourself?


Not as much as you might think. I have a boat.

chickelit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bagoh20 said...

ARM said:
"The base of the party hates immigration reform, the financial elites/backers want it because it suppresses wages. At some point someone is going to get screwed. It seems unlikely that it will be the financial backers."

That's all true, but neither will it be the immigrants, because they also benefit greatly from the suppressed wages, which are not really much suppressed. That keeps the jobs here rather than going abroad. We can't have a 100% service economy. We need to make things and compete with the world. The middle class also benefits by having cheaper services and product made in the USA. The simply is no alternative to being globally competitive. Europe is in the shitter from not being so right now, even with all their immigrants.

The left and right both encourage illegal immigration for different reasons. The right supports controls that discourage cheating, but still allows immigration so they can be employed. Perhaps cheaply, but that is their unskilled value on the global market, and they get uncommon benefits here on top of it. The left just wants as many in as possible and have no problem with them going immediately on the public dole.

I think the right's approach is superior: put them to work.

The difference between right an left on immigration is the same as most other things. The right supports a more market based approach, and the left supports illegality or simply making what was illegal now legal.

Same with voting laws, gun control, Senate rules, Presidential powers, IRS regulations, gun running, etc, etc.

chickelit said...

Fr. Fox said: This makes a GOP takeover of the Senate more likely, because there is a strong element of the electorate that doesn't want anyone to have too much power.

This what what should happen of course but for the first time in my adult life I think those in power will manage to concentrate even more power.

Dems are absolutely hellbent on one-party rule.

chickelit said...

AReasonableMan said...
Our very own ambulance chaser is back, with an irrelevant observation.
November 22, 2013 at 9:16 AM


Let he record stand that this remark was the first uncalled for ad hom. Ironically, it was made by an alleged reasonable man in response to a reasonable comment directed at him. The horse is now out of the barn.

I've decided to go a bit nuclear and just referee comment threads.

test said...

AReasonableMan said...
I have a boat.


It seems weak solace to ease your inability to reason. But whatever floats your dinghy.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

El Pollo Raylan said...

Let he record stand that this remark was the first uncalled for ad hom. Ironically, it was made by an alleged reasonable man in response to a reasonable comment directed at him. The horse is now out of the barn.


Oh can it. This was a carry over from a previous discussion. Are you going to monitor every discussion that we have on the internets? I think Marshall is an ambulance chasing putz. I have made that clear in multiple situations. He is free to avoid commenting on my comments which would avoid any response from me. He is also an adult not a child.

chickelit said...

This was a carry over from a previous discussion.

That's precisely the problem. You don't do the forum any favors by carrying such things forward.

Methadras said...

Who needs anymore proof this president is nothing more than scumbag traitor that needs to be removed from office if not by force and bring his entire administration down around his ear to boot. This is nothing more than wholesale takeover by the executive while half the legislative just rolled over and said no problem prez, we got your back. This country is FUBAR. Enough is enough. Seriously.

test said...

AReasonableMan said...
This was a carry over from a previous discussion.


In fact this is an attempt to run away from his idiotic comments.

chickelit said...

This (h/t to an Althouse commenter Irene) puts a face on the Democrat hypocrisy.

bagoh20 said...

Chickie, That video is clearly Obama "misspeaking" again as he carefully reads his written, prepared misspoken text.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

So we are all going to be shocked, shocked that politicians are acting politically?

When the Repubs finally figure out the best time to pass immigration reform are you all going to stop voting Repub because they have double crossed more than half their supporters?

Fr Martin Fox said...

El Pollo:

While nothing is certain, of course, it's very hard to see how the President and his party can assure themselves of keeping the Senate in 2014. Note, I didn't say they might not keep it; I said, they can't assure it.

In other words, they were vulnerable before nuking the filibuster, and they are vulnerable now. And it's very hard to see how this doesn't give the GOP at least one more argument for those races in states like Arkansas, Alaska, etc.

While I realize Obama wants his judges, it's hard to see throwing away such a valuable tool, long term, for such a short term gain.

After all, a Republican President and Congress can easily fix the judicial balance by adding more judges, which is exactly what both parties have done over the years.

Given how shortsighted the President and his folks have been on Obamacare, my guess is that Reid did this on his own, and everyone is trying to sound positive. But it was either a flub, or a desperation move.

bagoh20 said...

Immigration reform can't possibly ever satisfy every faction, but it can be done smart without bold-faced lies used to pass it in the dead of night without reading it, or getting a single bipartisan vote. Doing it right is politics too - it's just not dishonest or one-sided enough to satisfy the Democrats. They need to season all their stuff with lies and illegality.

test said...

Personally I'm touched by ARM's concern for conservatives. It comes across as totally genuine: not at all an effort to focus attention away from the Obamacare debacle.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Marshal said...
Personally I'm touched by ARM's concern for conservatives.


I'm a caring person.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

I don't want to see you guys get your hearts broken again.

Michael Haz said...

It's a desperation move. The plan for the next three years it rule by executive fiat, supported by a compliant and complicit court.

A Congressional recess is coming in a few weeks. There was no reason why Obama couldn't have waited and then made recess appointments of judicial nominees, as other presidents have done.

Interestingly, new EPA regulations are set to be imposed. They will give the EPA nearly unlimited authority over all land use regulations, federal, state and local, in America. It will be imposition of the anti-development, anti-energy, anti-progress agenda of the progressive greens.

And a compliant court will uphold the regulations in the face of challenges by aggrieved petitioners.

ricpic said...

Typical of ARM that knowing the goal is packing the courts he calls recognition of that "hysterical."

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

ricpic said...
Typical of ARM that knowing the goal is packing the courts


It is not packing the courts to fill vacancies. How hard is that to understand.

Was Bush packing the courts when he filled vacancies?

Fr Martin Fox said...

ARM:

I think you're right that the big business interests are pushing hard for "immigration reform," and the GOP is feeling a lot of pressure to give it to them. So I can't say I'll be surprised if they do it.

On the other hand, there is a significant amount of pressure on many GOPers against the bill, and it's not that hard to see that while such a bill will help business interests, it will also help the Democrats. So Boehner et al. have good reasons not to give it to them.

But they won't want to say that, even if that's what they want to do.

So I wouldn't be surprised if they elect to say things exactly like what Boehner is saying, while running out the clock.

We'll see.

test said...

AReasonableMan said...
It is not packing the courts to fill vacancies. How hard is that to understand.

______________________________
Foil Bush's Maneuvers for Packing the Court

Commentary
April 26, 2001|BRUCE ACKERMAN | Bruce Ackerman is a professor of law and political science at Yale

We are on the brink of a court-packing crisis

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/apr/26/local/me-55623
_____________________________

It's amusing watching ARM hyperventilate over the same language the left used in the same circumstances. If I were going to routinely deploy "partisan hack" as an insult I'd at least make an effort not to be so obviously a partisan hack.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Michael:

You're right in saying that Obama and Co. need a friendly DC Circuit to rubberstamp all his creative exercises of executive power.

However, those rulings can be appealed to the Supreme Court. And while the high court won't take them all, they will take some.

Also, a question: just because the DC Circuit is the normal venue for reviewing a lot of this stuff, it seems to me that doesn't preclude cases originating elsewhere. After all, the lawsuits over the HHS contraception mandate are bubbling up in many circuits. What am I missing here?

Michael Haz said...

The DC circuit handles suits against the DOJ.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Fr Martin Fox said...

On the other hand, there is a significant amount of pressure on many GOPers against the bill, and it's not that hard to see that while such a bill will help business interests, it will also help the Democrats. So Boehner et al. have good reasons not to give it to them.


Father, I am shocked. If I understand what you are saying correctly you are implying that the GOP leadership is playing politics with immigration. Who knew they were capable of this kind of behavior?

When I think about the conduct of immigration policy I invariably find myself drifting into wingnut territory where we are all just serfs serving the interests of a small elite that crosses ideological and even international boundaries.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Marhsall is back again. (I am sure I can hear an ambulance siren somewhere in the distance.)

When did I become responsible for everything written by some pol sci professor?

test said...

AReasonableMan said...
When did I become responsible for everything written by some pol sci professor?


There's ARM building a strawman to escape his error. No one said he is responsible for others comments. But those comments show that the term "packing the court" is used to refer to filling vacancies, a fact ARM denies despite all evidence.

To summarize the current status:

For:
Chuck Schumer and Ben Ackerman (an influention US Senator and a Yale Political Science Professor writing in a national publication)

Against: ARM (some lunatic partisan hack of no discernable intellect or accomplishment)

Rabel said...

For a fully committed leftist who believes that the ends justify the means wouldn't the next logical step be to create openings on the Supreme Court.

You could call it the Oswald Doctrine.

bagoh20 said...

"the GOP leadership is playing politics with immigration."

We understand that politicians on all sides play politics and little else. That's why we're small government conservatives, but apparently you like that shit, and the more it controls your life, the better. Most of your points today argue for smaller government. Now if you could outgrow that partisan stuff and the evil business boogieman. In fact, even the evils you hate about business are really just what happens when it gets too big and gets hooked up with government. Small is beautiful, my friend.

And that's NOT what she said.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Marshal said...

some unhinged nonsense


I hear those sirens calling. Slowly step away from the computer and go and do what you do best, clogging up the wheels of commerce with some frivolous law suit.

test said...

ARM:

C'mon, don't just run away with that weak shit. You wouldn't want to disappoint the guys at Media Matters would you?

Stick to claiming "packing the court" doesn't mean what thousands of lefties have used it to mean. The MM guys really value people willing to say stupid shit right to everyone's face. If you do it enough maybe you'll get the respect that has thus far eluded you.

Trooper York said...

Although I very seldom agree with A Reasonable Man I must admit I heartily enjoy him making fun of lawyers.

Good on you buddy!

Trooper York said...

I hope Lem offers you a slot so we can get some long posts with lots of contentious comments.

That always livens up stuff.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Marshall my drunken party guest who just won't leave, despite multiple inducements.

Let's put 'court packing' into the encyclopedia of record, Wikipedia, and we what do we get. Oh, surprise, it's an article about FDR. The phrase court packing has always referred to FDR's maneuvers to expand the high court. Whether some people chose to use the phrase to refer to other activities is as relevant as the decision by many writers to use holocaust to describe pretty much everything at some point in time. Transient hyperbole doesn't change long term understandings of what certain words and phrases mean.

edutcher said...

Now the Rs can repeal ChoomCare.

Which may be what the Demos are praying will happen.

Fr Martin Fox said...

ARM:

While you are correct as a technical matter on the conventional meaning of "court packing," it's still a weak argument.

First, because the meaning and referent of terms and phrases, particularly used in political debates, changes. After all, the Dems tried to repurpose the term themselves under Bush, and now the GOP is trying the same thing. If their argument gains ground, they may well succeed in attaching the label, "court packing," to Obama's effort to "transform" the judiciary, as he recently said he aimed to (just as other Presidents have).

Second, so what if the GOP is using this term ahistorically or otherwise inaccurately? If they spoke instead of "court stacking," would that really change anything?

The point they're making is a legitimate political point: they think Obama's appointees represent the wrong philosophy and they don't want them on the courts.

By staging a filibuster, they are giving the President and Co. the opportunity to appeal to the public and create pressure to break the filibuster. I.e., let's see whose side the public is on.

There's nothing particularly wrong with that. As I've indicated, I think that's a good thing. And, that's exactly what I thought Bush should have done when it happened to him.

Lydia said...

just because the DC Circuit is the normal venue for reviewing a lot of this stuff, it seems to me that doesn't preclude cases originating elsewhere. After all, the lawsuits over the HHS contraception mandate are bubbling up in many circuits. What am I missing here?

Yeah, other circuits can review these things, it’s just that the great majority of such cases are brought before the D.C. Circuit, which is what makes it so powerful. From an article written by Chief Justice John Roberts on the history of the D.C. Circuit back in 2003, when he was himself on that court:

"It is when you look at the docket that you really see the differences between the D.C. Circuit and the other courts. One-third of the D.C. Circuit appeals are from agency decisions. That is less than twenty percent nationwide. About one-quarter of the D.C. Circuit’s cases are other civil cases involving the federal government; nationwide that figure is only five percent. All told, about two-thirds of the cases before the D.C. Circuit involve the federal government in some civil capacity, while that figure is less than twenty-five percent nationwide."

and

"Whatever combination of letters you can put together [like the EPA, NLRB, FTC, FAA, etc.], it is likely that jurisdiction to review that agency’s decision is vested in the D.C. Circuit. Even when the jurisdiction is concurrent, as it often is—decisions of the NLRB, for example, can be reviewed in the D.C. Circuit, in the circuit where the petitioner resides, or in the circuit where the events giving rise to the matter took place—lawyers frequently prefer to litigate in the D.C. Circuit because there is a far more extensive body of administrative law developed there than in other circuits."

test said...

AReasonableMan said...
Marshall my drunken party guest who just won't leave, despite multiple inducements.


To be your guest this would need to be your site, so your ability to understand your environment remains at 0. A better analogy is you crashing a random party, being a jackass to everyone present, and then whining that someone speaks up.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Father, the term 'court-stacking' has been used to describe this particular activity, and seems less confusing. Court packing has a deeper emotional meaning of someone not willing to play by the rules. Neither Bush nor Obama were undertaking the extraordinary measures proposed by FDR.

Trooper York said...

The term "court packing" actually refers to what Justice Thomas is packing underneath his robe.

Trooper York said...

Anita was just pissed that he wasn't giving it up to her.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Trooper York said...
I hope Lem offers you a slot so we can get some long posts with lots of contentious comments.


What makes a good blog is an interesting topic.

Despite myself I drifted over to Althouse's blog the other day, which is where I encountered Marshall in all his quotidian glory. The comments section has become very homogeneous, orthodox Republican. To me this is an unexpected result since I thought the purging of the sploogers would have led to a more balanced ideological mix. The upshot is that the site is very uninviting. I gave it a try but it is not much fun without a few other commentators on your side. I do think Lem needs to make some changes to ensure that things remain at least somewhat heterodox over here. I often avoid commenting because I feel like I am crashing a party, particularly when everyone was enjoying the travails of the Obamacare roll-out.

deborah said...

You should try again ARM. Garage was back in all his glory yesterday.

(I heart Garage, just so this isn't misconstrued.)

chickelit said...

Oh come on, ARM is like an amicable Ritmo.

chickelit said...

I meant that in a good way. Same with phx.

Synova said...

I told my husband this morning that I thought that the Democrats (Reid) were doing this because they thought that the Republicans *wouldn't* obstruct the judges.

After all, what would they do then?

This way they get to maintain that Republicans are guilty for what they *would* have done, if they weren't preemptively prevented.

test said...

deborah said...
You should try again ARM.


He's over there being an asshole also.

El Pollo Raylan said...
Oh come on, ARM is like an amicable Ritmo.


Whatever you're taking is illegal even in Colorado.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Marshall is my greatest fan, with the possible exception of Matthew Sablan.

I have never really had followers before. It is the wonder of the internets. Unfortunately, like many followers, Marshall chooses to focus on the master's feet of clay.

I am thinking of starting a full-blown cult with Marshall and Matthew Sablan being appointed as my first two disciples. I hope to attract unthinking ideologues from across the political spectrum.

Trooper York said...

I think you add a lot here ARM. I would also like to invite you to participate at my blog. Just email me at trooperyork@hotmail.com and I will send you an invite.

We enjoy different viewpoints even if seems that one group dominates.

Most of the really talented commenters from TOP are here and not at the vanity dog spot. So please continue to give us the benefit of your perspective.

I though we most certainly not agree I think we do enjoy hearing from you.

In particular I would hope that you get a chance to guest post so you can take a longer form to promulgate and explain your ideas.

I would be very interested to hear your defense of Obama care in the long form. I think it would lead to a very interesting discussion.

test said...

How cute, ARM is posing. It's like when ugly children don't know they're ugly and crawl in front of the camera. Except he's almost an adult so it's probably kindest to let him know so he quits embarassing himself.

deborah said...

I like our liberal counterparts.

Trooper York said...

So do I. The ones who post here like Ritmo and ARM and Phx are the best of the lot by far.

They have a sense of humor at least and are not psychotic lunatics like some others we can mention.

Trooper York said...

I look forward to the moment that they get mugged and turn into conservatives.

I bet it will happen when they lose their health insurance. Just sayn'

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Marshal said...
It's like when ugly children don't know they're ugly


Forgive him father for he knows not what he says.

I anticipate that compassion and kindness to the less fortunate will be a major component of my prospective cult.

Trooper York said...

My cult has mostly babes with big tits and cartoon porn. Just sayn'

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

You may be getting a better deal.

test said...

deborah said...
I like our liberal counterparts.


You're a decent person Deborah, which means ARM is neither liberal nor your counterpart.

Decent liberals accept the costs and limitations of their preferences. They don't claim those who weigh effects over a longer term than they want the sick to die in the streets. They don't call Americans traitors for expecting acountability when people die as a result of tehir actions. They don't resist any level of accountability for government simply because it reflects poorly on their ideology. They don't criticize their opponents while exonerating their own leaders and supporters for failing the same standards.

Trooper York said...

I am more then happy to grant our liberal brethren a certain degree of hyperbole and colorful language.

This way I can continue to identify the Jug Eared Jesus as the Anti-Christ. Just sayn'

edutcher said...

It's interesting Troll has given up on the issues and is just concentrating on snark.

Not surprising, just interesting.


deborah said...

You should try again ARM. Garage was back in all his glory yesterday.

(I heart Garage, just so this isn't misconstrued.)


Garage is a mensch, but he must be going bananas these days.

I mean full Baghdad Bob mode.

Trooper York said...

Garage is actually a good guy with a great sense of humor.

He likes to provoke with his posts.

Sort of the flip side of edutcher.

You guys are the bizzaro side of each other.

deborah said...

Ed, I just skimmed the thread, but Althouse asked him if he ever felt icky for stating bs...paraphrase. Yeah, he has to be in agony...he came back after all.

test said...

Trooper York said...
I am more then happy to grant our liberal brethren a certain degree of hyperbole and colorful language.


The one you're defending doesn't grant it back (although he does to other leftists). This started because he was attacking someone's language, but in this very thread excused leftists for saying the exact same thing.

It's not the language, it's the double standards. The left says and does the most ridiculous things without a peep but suddenly leftists are holier than the pope when a non-leftist is speaking.

ndspinelli said...

One of the biggest tests for liberals is to have to ride mass transit in a big city daily.