G.O.P. Weighs Political Price of Court Fight

[Jhhnn]

Brilliant. Put a crazy radical on the court for life, without any realistic way to undo the damage, just to "witness righties pissing their pants". It's that kind of stupidity that gave us the health care fiasco.

Far from it. Douglas was far from crazy, and repeatedly ruled for the little guy over corporate/government interests. He was very much a civil libertarian, but I wouldn't expect you to know that. His memory has been wrongly vilified as much as Reagan's has been wrongly canonized by the so-called lib-ruhl mee-dee-uhh...

 

[Double Trouble]

Far from it. Douglas was far from crazy, and repeatedly ruled for the little guy over corporate/government interests. He was very much a civil libertarian, but I wouldn't expect you to know that. His memory has been wrongly vilified as much as Reagan's has been wrongly canonized by the so-called lib-ruhl mee-dee-uhh...

Regardless of your take or my take on Douglas' qualifications, your rationale for wanting him on the court (to make righties piss their pants) speaks volumes about what plagues the political system. Apparently having Obama put someone unqualified in there would fill you with glee if it upset the "other side". Very sad.

 

[woolfe9999]

Tell me, how is taxing people who buy premium insurance because they need it due to chronic conditions good?

Can you explain what provision of the HCL you are referring to here? This does not compute to me.

- wolf

 

[Throckmorton]

it seems like it probably wouldn't be worth the effort assuming Obama doesn't nominate someone especially objectionable.

all of Bush's SC nominees got confirmed other than the especially objectionable Harriette Myers.

in the end, Obama will be replacing a liberal with a liberal. this isn't an appointment that's going to change the fundamental balance of the court (like, say, if Thomas got hit by a bus tomorrow)

Obama's frontrunner is a conservative. Of course Republicans will oppose her and pretend she's a liberal.

 

[Patranus]

Yup, the conservatives seem to be "Big Government" conservatives.

I'm still angry about that 'emminent domain' decision.

Fern

The problem is that that court uses previous rulings to justify their current rulings.

FDR got around this by threatening the supreme court justices which lead them to cast aside 150 years a case law. This instilled a new base of case law which lead to where we are today.

 

[Throckmorton]

Uh, there's nothing 'republican' about the legislation, other than it's as corrupt as republicans have shown themselves to be as well. Increasing government involvement and spending is not republican, neither is increasing taxes and forcing people to purchase a product they don't want. Just because Romney backed something (and hey, look at how well that's going for the MA budget!) does not mean it's a 'republican' thing. Far from it.



Brilliant. Put a crazy radical on the court for life, without any realistic way to undo the damage, just to "witness righties pissing their pants". It's that kind of stupidity that gave us the health care fiasco.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/February/23/GOP-1993-health-reform-bill.aspx

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The 'Party of No' is poised and ready...the $64 question is whether it'll be a 'No' or 'DAMN NO!' But I can't help but wonder if they'll use abortion (or something else) as a litmus test and do everything possible to deny the nominee an up-and-down vote. But I'm sure the Dems won't mind these tactics in the least. This will be interesting...very interesting.

 

[Patranus]

The 'Party of No' is poised and ready...the $64 question is whether it'll be a 'No' or 'DAMN NO!' But I can't help but wonder if they'll use abortion (or something else) as a litmus test and do everything possible to deny the nominee an up-and-down vote. But I'm sure the Dems won't mind these tactics in the least. This will be interesting...very interesting.

The deficit now ranks as a top priority for many americans.
(Just below the economy)

Now, if that is the case, running on the party of no platform would be beneficial.

NO MORE SPENDING.

 

[Throckmorton]

The deficit now ranks as a top priority for many americans.
(Just below the economy)

Now, if that is the case, running on the party of no platform would be beneficial.

NO MORE SPENDING.

Funny how the deficit is only a top priority when the president is black. I guess the best thing we can do for the national debt would be to only elect black presidents from now on. Imagine if we had discovered this 50 years ago.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Funny how the deficit is only a top priority when the president is black. I guess the best thing we can do for the national debt would be to only elect black presidents from now on. Imagine if we had discovered this 50 years ago.

Is this what you actually believe? If so...it's official...you're brain dead.

 

[Patranus]

Funny how the deficit is only a top priority when the president is black. I guess the best thing we can do for the national debt would be to only elect black presidents from now on. Imagine if we had discovered this 50 years ago.

Gotta love the "progressive" playing the race card.

It has nothing to do with Obamas race.

Ever head of the expression "the straw the broke the camels back"?

Obama has added 2 trillion to the deficit in 1 year.

 

[Lemon law]

The problem with a litmus test or a hell no if some minority gets offended lies in the fact that more Americans would say hell yes than the few that say hell no.

The radical religious right's wet dream of repealing Roe v Wade is not sellable in the legislative branch, even the religious right knows that will never pass, so they are hoping they can get SCOTUS to do it for them. But if SCOTUS ever does so, there will be enough angry people to tear down the Supreme Court building down brick by Brick as the public respect for the courts would go to down to unprecedented new lows.

But to paraphrase Teddy Kennedy, every time there is a new Scotus nominee, the religious right comes out of the woodwork to revives their repeal Roe v Wade fantasy that never dies, even though its not going to ever happen.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Gotta love the "progressive" playing the race card.

It has nothing to do with Obamas race.

Ever head of the expression "the straw the broke the camels back"?

Obama has added 2 trillion to the deficit in 1 year.

And don't forget that Bush did his fair share too...with 2 wars and the banking industry bailout a year and a half ago....Obama is just continuing what Bush started and doing it 'better'.

Fiscal responsibility is ultimately in everyone's best interest...reckless spending of money you don't have never ends well.

 

[PokerGuy]

But to paraphrase Teddy Kennedy, every time there is a new Scotus nominee, the religious right comes out of the woodwork to revives their repeal Roe v Wade fantasy that never dies, even though its not going to ever happen.

Was he drunk at the time, or was it a special occasion?

What's wrong with a group pursuing their agenda just like every other group pursuing theirs? Is it only a bad thing when you disagree with their goal?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Obama's frontrunner is a conservative. Of course Republicans will oppose her and pretend she's a liberal.

Who are you claiming is the "frontrunner"?

 

[Patranus]

Who are you claiming is the "frontrunner"?

You misunderstood. He is so far out there he considers a 'blue dog democrat' a conservative.

 

[Lemon law]

Doc Savage Sobs that, "Obama has added 2 trillion to the deficit in 1 year."

Never mind the fact the its was the Republicans that spent the first trillion of it in the bail outs they caused and could have prevented.

What was the alternative? Let our entire financial system collapse and have an instant great depression.

We can hope economic prosperity will return after the structural problem are fixed, but meanwhile the fix is not cheap. So far it seems that the economy is slowly improving, but we must ask, where would we be with the failed policies of GWB? 25% or better unemployment was the Hoover answer.

 

[Patranus]

Doc Savage Sobs that, "Obama has added 2 trillion to the deficit in 1 year."

Never mind the fact the its was the Republicans that spent the first trillion of it in the bail outs they caused and could have prevented.

What was the alternative? Let our entire financial system collapse and have an instant great depression.

We can hope economic prosperity will return after the structural problem are fixed, but meanwhile the fix is not cheap. So far it seems that the economy is slowly improving, but we must ask, where would we be with the failed policies of GWB? 25% or better unemployment was the Hoover answer.

More than 1/2 of TARP has been repaid.
Did that money go to paying down the debt? Nope.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Doc Savage Sobs that, "Obama has added 2 trillion to the deficit in 1 year."

Never mind the fact the its was the Republicans that spent the first trillion of it in the bail outs they caused and could have prevented.

What was the alternative? Let our entire financial system collapse and have an instant great depression.

We can hope economic prosperity will return after the structural problem are fixed, but meanwhile the fix is not cheap. So far it seems that the economy is slowly improving, but we must ask, where would we be with the failed policies of GWB? 25% or better unemployment was the Hoover answer.

Bush had to spend about $1T to bail out the banks...I understand that he had no other options unless certain financial system collapse is considered a valid option. I also understand that Obama need to bail out AIG for essentially the same reason.

My biggest issue with Obama was the nearly $1T of 'stimulus' money he spent on one of the biggest pork bills in our history. Bottomline...the debt is skyrocketing and this does not bode well for the future...your future, my future, our children's future.

Both parties were culpable in allowing uncollateralized derivatives to exist virtually unregulated. Dems had control of the House Financial Services Committee for nearly 2 years prior to the crisis...I don't recall Dems ever making an issue of the problem before having House control or during those 2 years of actual control of this financial oversight committee. And you want to lay all the blame on the Republicans? That's rich...really rich.

But I guess I should expect no less from one who views this as a purely partisan issue of the 'good guys' versus the 'bad guys'....where the 'good' can do no wrong and the 'bad' can do no right. It's so much simpler that way...isn't it?

 

[nageov3t]

this is veering far away from the OP, but it always seems so funny to me how both the left and the right credit (or blame) Obama for the bailout and stimulus that Bush passed.

 

[Fern]

this is veering far away from the OP, but it always seems so funny to me how both the left and the right credit (or blame) Obama for the bailout and stimulus that Bush passed.

Bush didn't "pass" the $787 Stimulous Bill. It was signed by Obama.

Edit: You're pretty much correct about TARP. The outlines of the program were set-up under Bush and the Dem Congress. However, Obama is somewhat responsible, the original bill authorized the President(s) to request money from the program. Obama is responsible, IMO, for what he did with the money he requested & spent under the program.

Fern

 

[Throckmorton]

Gotta love the "progressive" playing the race card.

It has nothing to do with Obamas race.

Ever head of the expression "the straw the broke the camels back"?

Obama has added 2 trillion to the deficit in 1 year.

Well I certainly didn't see the rage and pure hatred when Bush was deficit spending, much less Clinton, Bush Sr, and Reagan... Suddenly we have a black president who a large portion of self-described conservatives believe is not a true American and teabaggers are marching in the street with guns and holding up signs showing Obama as a witch doctor.

Spare me the PC "how dare you" bullshit, even you undereducated overchurched simpletons can tell what's different about this president.

 

[Fern]

Well I certainly didn't see the rage and pure hatred when Bush was deficit spending, much less Clinton, Bush Sr, and Reagan... Suddenly we have a black president who a large portion of self-described conservatives believe is not a true American and teabaggers are marching in the street with guns and holding up signs showing Obama as a witch doctor.

Spare me the PC "how dare you" bullshit, even you undereducated overchurched simpletons can tell what's different about this president.

We've pretty much always had deficit spending, Americans are used to it.

However, the scope of the TARP and the stimulous package are exceptional, I think that distinction is anything but trivial.

Also, while initially supporting the wars in Iraq & Afgan, in later years people turned against them in no small part because of the costs. So before TARP and stimulous, the tide had already started to turn. This set up a bad atmosphere for those two budget busters.

Even worse was that TARP was for the fat-cat bankers, not exactly a popular bunch. Remember everyone complaining about "where's my bailout"? (TARP has in fact turned out to be not nearly expensive as 1st feared, recent reports estimate almost all of it being paid back. Too late, the PR damage has been done and so far as I know, the paid back funds have not been used to decrease fed debt.)

The stimulous bill is widely considered to be a big fat pile of steaming pork (and of no material help with the economy). What money is being spent on is as important as how much.

To pretend that that this recent spending, both in scope and beneficiary, is nothing new is silly. It is exceptional.

Fern

 

[woolfe9999]

We've pretty much always had deficit spending, Americans are used to it.

However, the scope of the TARP and the stimulous package are exceptional, I think that distinction is anything but trivial.

Also, while initially supporting the wars in Iraq & Afgan, in later years people turned against them in no small part because of the costs. So before TARP and stimulous, the tide had already started to turn. This set up a bad atmosphere for those two budget busters.

You've just unwittingly underscored Obama's core dilemma: coming into power after two unfunded wars were started, both of which lingered, an unpaid for tax cut, an unpaid for entitlement, and then of course, a massive recession and financial meltdown. The dilemma there being do you sit and do nothing about it or do you try to do something, meaning you are going to expand the deficit one way or the other, be it through tax cuts, spending increases, or a combination of the two.

The stimulous bill is widely considered to be a big fat pile of steaming pork (and of no material help with the economy). What money is being spent on is as important as how much.

"Widely considered" is pretty subjective. Certainly, Limbaugh preached it as "porkulous" to a very willing choir. But what is "pork barrel spending" these days anyway? It used to have a definition which was narrow enough to exclude what is in that bill, but definitions are of course infinitely pliable when one has a rhetorical point to make, particularly where politics are involved.

- wolf

 

[Jhhnn]

Regardless of your take or my take on Douglas' qualifications, your rationale for wanting him on the court (to make righties piss their pants) speaks volumes about what plagues the political system. Apparently having Obama put someone unqualified in there would fill you with glee if it upset the "other side". Very sad.

I never offered "unqualified" as being selection criteria- you did. For the Right, anybody not of the Faithful is pretty much unqualified by definition, and your responses confirm that...

We have a court carefully stacked with right-leaners and rightwing iconoclasts by previous repub presidents, with the so-called "liberal wing" not being very liberal at all- They were picked so as to not offend repub Senates at the time of their appointments.

Left? Leftists? There's really no such thing in American politics, certainly not any that have a voice or a following. The only extremists are on the Right- they finance the thinktanks, foundations and voices of the republican party, and the teabaggers, too. It's been that way for over 30 years.