Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojkt
In light of Iowa, and the general tenor and direction of the GOP race for the nomination, and
for that matter the general tenor and direction of the party as a whole, the Tea Party deserves kindness and understanding and a dismissive and cruel sneer.
The Tea Party should be forgiven. Our endeavors often come to nothing
and it becomes apparent that our our efforts were ludicrous from the start. Life is like that. For that reason, the Tea Party deserves kindness and understanding. As do we all.
And after all the bluster, all the talk, after all the risible history lessons (that is to say after all the strange, crackpot accounts of historical events), after all the comical claims to have, God knows how, privileged access to the consciousnesses of “the founders” and to know all their wishes for us, their progeny, after all the nonsense about “socialism”, after all the excuses
for, confusingly, not manning the barricades when a Republican president was spending, after prattling on and on about smaller government while guarding medicare like a rabid, starving, snarling cur protecting a bone with a scrap of meat clinging to it, after all
that, the Tea Party deserves cruel smirks, mockery, and open scorn.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
Well, that was sure persuasive.I don't think you grasp the purpose of this place.
LikeLike
With a couple of small contextual adjustments, it wouldn't be all that difficult to write the same, essentially contentless, piece replacing "Tea Party" with "Obama" and "Republicans" with "Democrats".
LikeLike
qb, do you mean grasp the purpose of ATiM like you do when describing your view of either OWS or Obama.Yes, Virginia, the occupiers (lmsinca's kin excluded) really are dumb and igorant, at least if how they answer basic factual questions pertinent to their amorphous complaints and demands are a fair metric.not very bright slackers demanding free stuffIt seems popular to say, well, no matter how silly or uninformed (some but by no means all of) these protesters are, or even how destructive, what their complaints are valid because they are angry and frustrated. This is meaningless enabling rhetoric in my opinion. But, okay, let's play that game. I am angry and frustrated, too. Part of what I am angry and frustrated about is a bunch of people — some but not all — in the streets who have bogus grievances and want a free lunch, who are grossly uninformed and apparently in many cases have little responsibility even for themselves. And I am angry and frustrated that these people — some but not all — who want my taxes raised, the economy to be further stifled under regulations and distorting taxes and spending these peopled don't even understand, to pay for freebies for themselves, are coddled and encouraged by a media and political culture that is bent on dragging this country further down the road to serfdom. Since I'm angry and frustrated, it appears that my views are valid.
LikeLike
No.
LikeLike
ScottC: More to it, I think the same description applies to Occupy Wall Street. More to the point, I think the same could be applied, with small adjustments, to any group, if you sufficiently occluded your perspective on that group. Could the same be said, for example, about The Union of Concerned Scientists? Sure. Anybody who has ever spoken before the UN. Anybody who writes for Mother Jones. But as far as any activist group, the Tea Party has, thus far, more demonstrable accomplishments (I refer you to November, 2010, congressional and local and statewide races, in particular) than OWS–or any number of grass roots political movements, irrespective of what considers the value of those accomplishments. There have been many folks who have attempted to band together and influence politics and haven't accomplished much more. Also, I think an epitaph for the Tea Party is, at present, premature. There were those (like me) that have predicted the directly influence of the Tea Party on the national level would be minimal–that doesn't mean they aren't going to be important in certain districts, and at the local level (which often includes who controls the state legislature, at the end of the day) for several cycles to come.
LikeLike
Neither Nathan's post, nor QBs, would be how I personally would choose to express said sentiments . . . but at least somebody posted something. I guess that's how it starts. 😉
LikeLike
after prattling on and on about smaller government while guarding medicareBTW, the Tea Party is a biggish tent. There are plenty of Teapers who aren't interested in guarding medicare, and weren't. In fact, there was a broad range of big government conservative to small government libertarian viewpoints represented within the Tea Party.
LikeLike
kevin:More to the point, I think the same could be applied, with small adjustments, to any group, if you sufficiently occluded your perspective on that group.Precisely why I said it was essentially contentless.
LikeLike
All I'm saying is we've managed to squash the personal insults here but there are still going to be political insults as it's the nature of philosophical differences.I agree the Tea Party has certainly had a political influence, whether for good or ill is debatable. I don't think OWS has had nearly as much influence although they did get even Eric Cantor to discuss wealth inequality as well as several other Republicans. I think they helped to refocus Dems at least slightly on the Middle Class, also for good or ill. I saw a chart this morning that showed spending going forward as a percentage of GDP and everything, including SS, was flat except for health care spending. If we don't tackle that, regardless of whether we're right, left or somewhere in the middle we're destined for huge deficits anyway and not much growth.
LikeLike
Not to change the subject but here's Taibbi's take on this years election.In the wake of the Tea Party, the Occupy movement, and a dozen or more episodes of real rebellion on the streets, in the legislatures of cities and towns, and in state and federal courthouses, this presidential race now feels like a banal bureaucratic sideshow to the real event – the real event being a looming confrontation between huge masses of disaffected citizens on both sides of the aisle, and a corrupt and increasingly ideologically bankrupt political establishment, represented in large part by the two parties dominating this race.Let’s put it this way. What feels more like a real news story – Newt Gingrich calling Mitt Romney a liar for the ten millionth time, or this sizzling item that just hit the wires by way of the Montana Supreme Court: "HELENA — The Montana Supreme Court restored the state's century-old ban on direct spending by corporations on political candidates or committees in a ruling Friday that interest groups say bucks a high-profile U.S. Supreme Court decision granting political speech rights to corporations… A group seeking to undo the Citizens United decision lauded the Montana high court, with its co-founder saying it was a "huge victory for democracy." "With this ruling, the Montana Supreme Court now sets up the first test case for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit its Citizens United decision, a decision which poses a direct and serious threat to our democracy," John Bonifaz, of Free Speech For People, said in a statement."Now that is real politics — real protest, real change. Exactly the opposite of the limp and sterile charade in Iowa. This caucus, let’s face it, marks the beginning of a long, rigidly-controlled, carefully choreographed process that is really designed to do two things: weed out dangerous minority opinions, and award power to the candidate who least offends the public while he goes about his primary job of energetically representing establishment interests.If that sounds like a glib take on a free election system that allows the public to choose whichever candidate it likes best without any censorship or overt state interference, so be it. But the ugly reality, as Dylan Ratigan continually points out, is that the candidate who raises the most money wins an astonishing 94% of the time in America.
LikeLike
I think saying it is essentially contentless is being generous, really. It was basically a Mad Lib (pun intended). As I have frequently demonstrated I am fine with using some exaggeration, humor and hyperbole to make a point. Sometimes I think we get too picky about precisely what words someone uses instead of focusing on their broader point. But there needs to be a broader point and a post can't be exclusively exaggeration and hyperbole.
LikeLike
Hi, y'all.LMS seems right as rain about health care costs.Political insults are often taken personally. Case in point?QB and Ashot, do you agree that there is no constitutional issue about the four recess appointments?TR once made 160 recess appointments on the same day. Historical context thought of the day.
LikeLike
Ashot, was the Montana decision limited in its effect to the rights of Montana chartered entities? If not, I do not see how it sets up a test case worth a dime in a federal court.
LikeLike
Also, I can only imagine the Montana case having effect in Montana if it focused on the nature of Montana chartered business entities under the Montana statutes. In other words, if it simply said "corporations cannot fund PACs in Montana" it is a big nothing.
LikeLike
ashot:I think saying it is essentially contentless is being generous.In the spirit of ATiM, I am a generous guy.
LikeLike
Mark- I have not read the Montana decision so I'm not sure if it is limited to Montana Chartered Businesses. In my 5 minutes of research it looks like the court has said Montana is unique given its size and business make up so the state does have a compelling interest in limiting corporate contributions and therefore laws limiting such contributions pass strict scrutiny. That seems like a pretty direct challenge to the SCOTUS.I did find this quote from the dissent pretty interesting: "Corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people — human beings — to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creatures of government.Worse still, while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons."
LikeLike
Mark:QB and Ashot, do you agree that there is no constitutional issue about the four recess appointments?I think it is safe to say that qb does not agree.
LikeLike
as Dylan Ratigan continually points out, is that the candidate who raises the most money wins an astonishing 94% of the time in AmericaHowever, I suspect that's correlative, rather than causative. The same person who is likely to garner the most votes is also the candidate likely to get the most people voting for them with their dollars.
LikeLike
In the spirit of ATiM, I am a generous guy. Nonesense, you're a banker or some derivation thereof. Go visit the PL to learn about what you're really like. 😉
LikeLike
Mark:TR once made 160 recess appointments on the same day.Yes, but if I am not mistaken, Congress was actually in recess at the time, no?
LikeLike
Mark,No, I think these appointments are unconstitutional, because there was no recess, and I believe that Obama's actions and his rhetoric yesterday show that he simply doesn't care, that for all his talk he does not take the Constitution or its limitations on his power seriously. It emphatically is not his "duty" to "act" just because he believes Congress should but refuses to do what he wants. He chafes at the limitations on his power, but that is how the system of government was designed. It is designed to STOP an ambitious President from "fundamentally transforming" the country into something he wishes it to be. He is now in open rebellion against those restraints.That's my opinion.
LikeLike
Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons.If it weren't, then corporations would be "bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency and morality". However, given that corporations are (a) groups of people, with livelihoods that the necessarily have a vested interest in and (b) can be put out of business by regulations written by another group of people individually unaccountable and unbound, collectively, from the accountability for their actions that might accrue to them individually, I find it it difficult to argue that corporations should have no voice in the political process. Equating money to speech is one thing, but many arguments (including that above) seem to be that, because a corporation is a group of people rather than an individual person, those corporations are not entitled to a voice in the political process, despite the outsize influence government legislation has on the existence of those corporations.
LikeLike
ashot (from the dissent):Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people — human beings — to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creatures of government.I am no lawyer, and I don't know anything about this specific case, but it seems to me that "pro-corporation" argument (for lack of a better term) is not that a "soulless creature of government" has natural rights, but rather that individuals who indisputably do have natural rights do not suddenly lose them when acting in the name a legally created entity such as a corporation.In other words, the owners of the New York Times do not lose their right to free expression simply because they choose to express themselves through the organ of the New York Times corporation.Seems to me this dissent is a complete non-sequitur and entirely misses the point.
LikeLike
BTW, I fully support Obama's ability to make any recess appointments he sees fit, even if they are made during the recess because they couldn't pass muster with the senates outsize view of their advise and consent role. However, they should be made during an actual recess.
LikeLike
QB, he is no doubt politicizing the moment. Further, he is a proponent of executive power well beyond my comfort zone – for me, not vetoing a bill with the right of POTUS to declare me an enemy of the state beyond the protection of the BoR was enough to get me thinking of Gary Johnson again, quite seriously.However, as a purely legal matter, I do not think a court at any level will find that Congress was not in recess, because a few guys showed up now and then, with no agenda.
LikeLike
Political insults are often taken personally. Case in point?Political insults are often taken personally, because the insults are directed at people "like you". They may be political in nature, but they are of a nature that, say, "people who believe in smaller government are cruel and inhumane, and hate poor people, especially minorities" . . . and if I am a person who believes in smaller government, I feel, not without reason, that these things are being said to me or about me, and I take offense. "Republitards" and "libtards" are similarly broad indictments, but suggest that because I am a Republican or a liberal that that fact, in an of itself, means I am of diminished mental capacity or incapable of rational thought, thus I might reasonably be offended. Which is why such broad indictments are rarely conducive to an actual exchange of ideas.
LikeLike
but many arguments (including that above) seem to be that, because a corporation is a group of people rather than an individual person, those corporations are not entitled to a voice in the political process, despite the outsize influence government legislation has on the existence of those corporations.Maybe the justice who wrote the dissent thinks corporations should have no voice in the political process (that's a reasonable conclusion to draw form the quote) although I don't think even that is prefectly clear but I disagree strongly if he feels that way. Again, I know very little about the case, but I thought the court was looking to put back in place limitation on corporate political speech, not eliminate it entirely. The justice actually dissented because he thinks United Citizens is controlling so it is odd he would be that pragmatic on the issue of precedent while go all rogue on eliminating corporate political speech entirely. As QB pointed out previously, at the very least corporations need to have enough personhood status to sign contracts. If not, our economy is pretty much screwed.
LikeLike
I have read little about the Montana decision but saw it show up in several different legal news alerts.Since CU doesn't concern contributions but independent spending, it escapes me how this decision contradicts it.The language quoted by ashot, however, is almost parodically overwrought and illogical. That hardly and sadly makes it unusual for a court opinion, but it has all the earmarks of a court reaching to write a sweeping, dramatic, and historical opinion and instead producing a clinker.The second sentence is as crude an insult to SCOTUS as I can remember reading in a court opinion. The second sentence simply isn't true in any meaningful way I can discern. The third is a rhetorical flourish without logical import. The government does not assign human beings to hell; nor does it to Heaven. Corporations don't get the death penaly, since they can't suffer physical death, but they can be judicially dissolved, which doesn't apply to human beings. If corporations aren't persons, they can't do anything under the law. It's a fundamentally silly form of argument.
LikeLike
Mark, there are many things I like about Obama, as you know. There are many things I like (despite being fundamentally conservative on many issues) about liberalism and progressivism (I know, this begs more conversation, some other time) . . . thus, the fact that no liberal politician actively advances a more liberal position of winding down the War on Drugs or legalizing a largely benign recreational drug like marijuana always makes me ask the question: what are liberal politicians good for, then, aside from raising taxes? Obama signing the NDAA is another example. If he's going to sign on for the indefinite detention of terror suspects (or people suspected of supporting terrorism), he's just another politicrat, pushing for the expansion of executive and political power.
LikeLike
Seems to me this dissent is a complete non-sequitur and entirely misses the point.Agreed, at least with respect to the portion quoted above. A few other adjectives come to mind. I appreciate the criticism that corporations, to a degree, have less criminal culpability than individuals. However, it's not as if there is no accountability whatsoever. Maybe we should make fines stiffer or prosecute CEOs and Boards of Directors/Trustees more frequently, but there are a variety of ways a corporation can be held accountable for bad acts. If there weren't I wouldn't have a job.
LikeLike
Full text of NDAA.
LikeLike
QB- The portion I quoted was from a dissent, so I'm not sure "but it has all the earmarks of a court reaching to write a sweeping, dramatic, and historical opinion and instead producing a clinker" is necessary applicable. Since we're ranting a bit about judicial decisions etc, have either Mark or QB dealt with a disparate impact Title VII (or similar anti-discrimination statute)claim? The jurisprudence in that field leads to some idiotic results.
LikeLike
KW, I agree with your 7:43 comment. Plus, people will find a way to spend their money to say what they want, as they should.
LikeLike
It was my understanding that "the purpose of this place" was to be able to post opinions without the trolling.It was also my understanding that we had, all of us, a mutual respect for all of the posters.However, for the last two weeks, that is not what I have seen.Don't excuse me for being liberal. Don't excuse me for having opinions that may differ from yours.Accept it.To comment to a post saying, "I don't think you grasp the purpose of this place" is insulting, plain and simple.Do you really think that anyone here has the end-all and be-all of opinion?Can you dispute that the spokesmen of the TP have made various claims that "It's not what the founding fathers had in mind"? Can you dispute that the spokesmen of the dems have made the same claim?Can you dispute that the repubs have made every effort to be obstructionist?Because they announced that they would behave this way, does that make it okay?
LikeLike
Taroya- I think calling the post trolling would be harsh, but I could see some posters at the PL posting something pretty similar. I do think the original post was insulting and while wish QB had responded differently I already tried on the post nanny uniform and didn't enjoy it. What comments over the last two weeks do you feel have not been respectful?
LikeLike
I already tried on the post nanny uniform and didn't enjoy it.Yeah, me neither. I guess we should just all respond according to the values that drove us here in the first place. Wish we could find someone whose size matches the uniform, or at least a volunteer………… ;>)
LikeLike
The post is content-free sneering, insult without a pretense of substance. But feel free to indulge and enjoy the spitballing. I'm taking a break from it rather than go down the slippery slope, and to concentrate on some other things. Obama's actions and the recent behavior of his supporters have me not in a mood to be kind anyway, let alone in response to material like this.
LikeLike
Come on qb, it was just a mocking post similar to many we've read on both sides of the aisle. And no one expects you to be kind if you don't want to be or are not so inclined. I put your comments up only to show you that Nathan hasn't cornered the market on sneering or mocking and then I attempted to change the subject as you may have noticed. There are all sorts of things we can discuss without resorting to spit-balling and I thought that was the intent of ATiM, although all of us fall short on occasion. I'm not necessarily in the mood to be moderate all the time myself so sometimes I just keep my more angry opinions to myself……that's just me though. Whatever 😦
LikeLike
"all of us fall short on occasion."Sometimes the hardest thing to do is ignore a comment that should be ignored. .
LikeLike
I'm with QB, this post is complete bullshit.
LikeLike
If the post is contentless, then why all the commentary about it? Seems to me it's generated an interesting discussion.
LikeLike
It may be bullshit, but we all post bullshit from time to time out of anger and frustration…..that was my point. I'm busy too and sometimes it's easier to just skip commenting than participate, an option I've been exercising myself. We need to figure out a way to argue the issues instead of personalities, if that's even possible. I don't know the answers, I'm just throwing stuff out. I do know I'm about 10 seconds away from giving up on the adventure.
LikeLike
Good point MsJS.
LikeLike
So my favorite lefty just posted a distinction on the recess/non-recess appointments made by Obama which I found interesting. Not sure of the legal issues of course from my end, but I found it somewhat compelling in that it helps explain the Administrations decision………I think.The reason is pretty clear. The President is making a distinction between nominees who the various agencies can do without for a spell and nominees whose seating is crucial to the functioning of the agency. The CFPB would not have full regulatory powers without a seated director, including the ability to regulate non-bank financial institutions.Similarly, the NLRB appointments protect the survival of the NLRB itself. With Craig Becker’s previous (recess) appointment running out, the agency was left on January 1 with only two members of a five-member panel. The Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that the board could not conduct business or issue binding rulings without a quorum. So by denying any confirmations, Republicans were essentially stopping all labor law in America from being enforced.So that’s the dividing line for the Administration, as Kevin Drum explains."If these are the only recess appointments he fills, then he’s making a very clear, very defensible constitutional point. He’s not merely complaining that a Senate minority is blocking his nominees. He’s arguing that it’s wrong for a Senate minority to shut down entire agencies — agencies that have been duly created by statute — by abusing its appointment power […] This is a point worth making, even if it’s arcane enough that it’s unlikely to get much public attention. Because to the extent that it does get public attention, it’s nothing but bad news for Republicans. They’ll be forced to defend a strategy of using their filibuster power not to stop legislation they don’t like, but to unilaterally nullify legislation they don’t like even after they’ve lost the vote and it’s been passed and signed into law. That’s going to be a hard case to make."
LikeLike
I wasn't sure if this should be posted here or in the next post but as it was discussed here briefly, here it is.
LikeLike
MsJS:If the post is contentless, then why all the commentary about it?Most of the commentary seems to me to be about its style, not its content. As a critique/commentary on the Tea Party, which presumably was its purpose, I am hard pressed to find any real substance to it. The closest it comes to any substantive criticism is the allusion to hypocrisy regarding medicare, but that is pretty thin gruel if you ask me, particularly given the manner in which it was presented.Again, the only interesting thing I see about the post is its obvious desire to provoke, which becomes even more stark in its drive-by nature, coming as it does from someone who almost never makes any comments or posts, and hasn't bothered to stick around to engage on the one post he did make.(In case it isn't obvious, this is my measured way of agreeing with McWing's blunt and perfectly accurate characterization.)
LikeLike
Then why the labor appointees? They were nominated only 3 weeks ago.
LikeLike
To comment to a post saying, "I don't think you grasp the purpose of this place" is insulting, plain and simple.Well, ideally, posts saying that one group deserves derision or mockery would not be typical. At the same time, my well is about dry so . . . I dunno, I guess it's good that somebody is posting something. What comments over the last two weeks do you feel have not been respectful?I second the question as, aside from this post, I can't think of something in the last two weeks that can be said, even stretching the definition, to be trolling. Not a fan of drive-bys, but my goal with such posts (or comments, especially if you consider them trolling) is to find a way to talk them down off the ledge, rather than get up there with them (I'm not necessarily all that good at that). But some additional clarification would be nice, and might be forthcoming, as there doesn't seem to be a lot of depth to the assertions above, as far as I can tell.
LikeLike
Corporation are not people, and as such, they don't get to vote, either.The people making up the corporation get to vote, though.I recall something about advertisers can't lie about their products, i.e. claim that this pill will give you perfect health, or that the playpen is made of wood when it is really made of plastic that looks like wood.When they state that such-and-such regulation puts an unrealistic burden on their business, they have to support that with facts and figures.There are no facts or figures for opinions.Besides, corporations are not people; how can they have an opinion?But CU gives them exactly that.
LikeLike
He’s arguing that it’s wrong for a Senate minority to shut down entire agencies — agencies that have been duly created by statute — by abusing its appointment powerThis seems like a fair point, to me, but expect the next Republican president to do the same thing. Although, if it's Romney, who knows.
LikeLike
'trolling' wasn't meant as in 'drive-by', but as in disrespectful.Nevertheless, I was over the top.Apologies.
LikeLike
Taroya:Besides, corporations are not people; how can they have an opinion?They don't. But people who do have opinions can, and often do, express them through corporate activity. For instance, this morning the owners of The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal, all printed opinions through their corporate vehicles designed for precisely that purpose. If you understand what it means to say that the NYT corporation is capable of holding and expressing an opinion in an editorial, then you should also understand that what it means to say that, for instance, the General Electric corporation is capable of holding and expressing an opinion through a political donation.Do you want to stop, say, the New York Times corporation from spending money advancing political opinions?
LikeLike
Scott: the only interesting thing I see about the post is its obvious desire to provoke, which becomes even more stark in its drive-by naturePerhaps I should resurrect my IGNORE button.
LikeLike
Do you want to stop, say, the New York Times corporation from spending money advancing political opinions?While I am sure some people want corporations to have no voice, I don't know that it has ever been the case that corporations were prohibited from political speech. Most who oppose the CU decision want the restrictions overtuned by the decision to be put back in place.
LikeLike
No need to apologize Taroya. It's perfectly fine to call out another poster if you feel the need to do so. I happened to disagree with you somewhat this time, but as lmsinca pointed out, QB hasn't always been perfectly respectful towards others. However, he usually sticks around and explains his opinions, even if I disagree with them or how he expresses them.
LikeLike
ashot:Most who oppose the CU decision want the restrictions overtuned by the decision to be put back in place.I know. But it all derives from a desire to keep corporations from "influencing" elections by spending lots of money. Yet this apparent concern never seems to apply to the one set of corporations that spend more money trying to influence elections than any others…media corporations.There is, to me, a very obvious problem for people who defend the right of, say, the NYT to spend as much money as it wants advocating for certain political positions, but who are suddenly appalled when other corporations spend money doing the same thing.
LikeLike
There is, to me, a very obvious problem for people who defend the right of, say, the NYT to spend as much money as it wants advocating for certain political positions, but who are suddenly appalled when other corporations spend money doing the same thing.Well, it's especially ironic when the complaint is about Fox News. 😉
LikeLike
There is a distinction between media companies, which are exercising their opinion in their own name (and often opinions from multiple political views), as compared to corporations or individuals donating anonymously to these so-called super-PACs.
LikeLike
Yet this apparent concern never seems to apply to the one set of corporations that spend more money trying to influence elections than any others…media corporations.I don't know…I suspect that concern applies to Fox News. 😉 I can see how people could seperate out the media given the additional protection provided for the press in the Constitution. Not saying there is a legally recognizeable difference between such entities with respect to the protection of their right to political speech. I'm just saying I can see how people can separate out the media. I think the better example for your argument may be Unions who obviously have plenty of influence on elections, particularly in states like Michigan.
LikeLike
bsimon:There is a distinction between media companies, which are exercising their opinion in their own name (and often opinions from multiple political views), as compared to corporations or individuals donating anonymously to these so-called super-PACs.The only relevant distinction is anonymity. I am all for full disclosure. Apart from that, I don't see any meaningful distinction requiring special legislation.
LikeLike
bsimon:I said "…requiring special legislation." I should have said "…justifying special legislation."
LikeLike
ScottC: The only relevant distinction is anonymity. I am all for full disclosure. Apart from that, I don't see any meaningful distinction requiring special legislation.Agreed. I am also for full disclosure, otherwise I'm not sure why it's a good idea to limit political speech, from any person or group of people.
LikeLike
I think if we had full disclosure, it would actually cut down on the necessity of so much money being thrown at politicians.
LikeLike
otherwise I'm not sure why it's a good idea to limit political speech, from any person or group of peopleAs I recall the argument is that too much corporate money causes voters to lose faith in the democratic process and preventing that from occurring is a compelling enough state interest to allow the restriction of political speech. Of course the problem with that argument is how do you prove that voters have lost faith or would lose faith in the face of unlimited corporate speech? A poll, voter turnout numbers? Limiting political speech is too big of a deal to let courts get by with one of those I'll know it when I see it type opinions.
LikeLike
lms:I think if we had full disclosure, it would actually cut down on the necessity of so much money being thrown at politicians.Groups of people are going to need to throw money at politicians as long as politicians hold and are willing to use the power to adversely/beneficially affect those groups. A particular group may be less inclined to throw money at a politician if they have to do so publicly, but the incentive to figure out a way to get that money to them will still exist.
LikeLike
You're probably correct scott……..but a girl can dream.
LikeLike
"What constitutes a recess for the Senate?" – is what I wanted to engage QB and Ashot about. I dimly recall that in late 2010 McConnell made a deal with Reid whereby the Rs allowed dozens of appointments to go to a vote in exchange for Reid keeping the every three day 15 minute sessions alive, coupled with a WH pledge to honor the charade as not a recess. There is no Constitutional definition of arecess, and TR took advantage of a one day recess for his record setting number of recess appointments.So two Volokh contributors lean heavily to the notion that there is no magic to three days+ as being the requisite for recess.I think a court could buy the Senate's changing definition of a recess as controlling but I do not think it would do so. I think a court would say that when the Senate is not in regular session – when despite pro forma meetings it is not doing business – it cannot said to be in session and is in recess for constitutional purposes.Just my guess – but the Volokh guys give me the strength of three.
LikeLike
After all the hue and cry The Tea Party raised, some forgiveness and understanding, and mockery and scorn, seems well deserved after delivering so little. The outcry over bailouts quickly faded and it became apparent that despite all the noise nothing had changed or would. A look at the Republican leadership and the results from Iowa make that clear. Just to be clear, The Tea Party is hardly alone in this. A phrase such as "We are the change we've been waiting for", for example, seems equal parts touching, due to its optimism, and a rather empty example of people flattering themselves and allowing candidates to flatter them.
LikeLike
"What constitutes a recess for the Senate?" – is what I wanted to engage QB and Ashot about.I have no idea. I do wonder if a court would punt on the issue saying it was a political question.
LikeLike
Mark,I'm late here but I the SCOTUS will ultimately defer to the Senate as to what constitutes a recess. The SC will say the precedent by the Senate in regards to these "pro-forma" sessions indicates that they have, untill Obama, been considered as "not being in recess even though they exist ONLY to block Executive Branch nominees from being recess appointed."
LikeLike
N. Sullivan,I'm flabbergasted that the largest Republican House victory ( along with all the State election victories) constitutes "after delivering so little."And nice drive-by, by the way. Very classy.
LikeLike
Largest Republican victory in over 65 years, I should have said.
LikeLike
McWing/Mark:The WSJ has an op-ed on the recess thing today by David Rivkin and Lee Casey which makes an interesting point.While they acknowledge that, in general, whether or not these pro-forma sessions "…are inherently sufficient to defeat a presidential recess appointment is debatable,", they argue that in this particular case it is not.However, in circumstances where the Senate is not merely in session as a theoretical matter, but is actually conducting business—albeit on the basis of agreements that measures can and will be adopted by "unanimous consent" without an actual vote—there can be no question that it is not in recess.That is the situation today. The traditional test, as articulated in a 1989 published opinion by the Justice Department's own constitutional experts in the Office of Legal Counsel, is "whether the adjournment of the Senate is of such duration that the Senate could 'not receive communications from the President or participate as a body in making appointments.'" Today's Senate, which is controlled by the president's own party, is fully capable of performing both functions in accordance with its rules. Indeed, the Senate is so much in session that on Dec. 23—three days after beginning its pro forma session—it passed President Obama's current highest legislative priority: a two-month payroll tax holiday, which the president promptly signed.How can the Senate be sensibly declared to be in recess if it is actually passing bills?I think the WSJ article is outside the subscription firewall, so you should be able to see the whole thing.
LikeLike
I understood the House to have recessed after that tax holiday, making the Senate sessions purely pro forma.But I see the point – there may be just enough substance to the pro formas to allow the first appeal from this NLRB to succeed.
LikeLike
Largest Republican victory in over 65 years, I should have said. I have to agree, no matter what you think of the relatively amorphous and broad "platform" of the Tea Party, they clearly had a hand in the largest Republican victory in 65 years–something made even more astounding by the chattering classes, and the Democratic pundits, near universal conclusion that, after 2008, the Republicans were permanently marginalized, or at least doomed to 40 years in the wilderness before finally coming back, chastened, and modeling themselves after Democrats (or Rockefeller Republicans), so that the public might allow them another win, perhaps. I was skeptical that the Tea Party was going to choose the national candidate–and, whaddaya know, it didn't. But what's going on in terms of state and local wins in 2010, and stat redistricting now, it's hard to argue that the Tea Party movement (whatever you choose to believe it was–grass roots or Koch astroturf) delivered mightily for the Republicans. Mightily.
LikeLike
The outcry over bailouts quickly faded and it became apparent that despite all the noise nothing had changed or would. BTW, I don't think the hue and cry over the bailouts has faded, anymore than one would expect any issue to fade after a hundred news cycle, but I still hear about it, and when Teapers are articulating their problems with government, or the current administration, economic stimulus is usually point #1 or #2. Of course, little has changed (although some things have changed–you'll find that out if you try to get a house loan and compare that experience to, say, 2005) . . . but when it comes to reigning in the folks who control the campaign purse strings, who is going to deliver on that? Seriously? That's like saying the Teapers didn't all become a hundred feet tall and turn into solid gold, thus they are irrelevant. 😉
LikeLike
But didn't the Tea Party arguably cost Republicans the Senate? Isn't it arguable that the Tea Party refusal to accept Obama's debt deal has resulted in a a worse deal for Republican and the Tea Party in the end? I realize you and McWing are responding to a post that ignored any accomplishments of the Tea Party, but your posts similarly ignore their failures or, in Kevin's case, blame DC for a lack of accomplishments. Like Obama, Tea Party candidates vowed to change DC. Now Kevin seems to say it was naive to think they could do so. Either they were liars and had no intention of changing DC, or they failed to accomplish their stated goal. The same goes for Obama.
LikeLike
But didn't the Tea Party arguably cost Republicans the SenateProbably cost them some plum seats . . . like unseating Harry Reid, for one. But in the larger context, the Tea Party proved to be an effective mechanism for expressing voter dissatisfaction, especially in house and local races. All of which make a big difference. And while the only change they've brought to Washington may be an even more intransigent gridlock, that's something that many of the Tea Party folks, I suspect, believe to be better than having stayed with the status quo. On the whole, in a real world context, I think the Tea Party delivered as mightily as one could possibly expect.
LikeLike
Or, another way to look at it: all candidates, policies, and movements fail when held against a utopian yardstick. I'm pretty sure, for example, that the Obama administration will not, in fact, be looked back upon as the moment the sea levels began to recede and the planet began to cool and all people began to live in harmony.
LikeLike
The local aspect is probably overlooked by people like myself. The city where my firm's office is located (Troy Michigan)elected a Tea Party as mayor. Granted she later got in trouble for using a gay slur on facebook. Anyway, point being focusing on Washington, as I have done, probably fails to capture totality of the Tea Party's influence and accmoplishments.
LikeLike
40 Senate R votes before Nov '10 election was worth it. RINO's feeling pressured from the right is better then controlling a committee chair.
LikeLike