Monday Morning Open Thread

Open Thread.

< DEA and Aspen: They Just Can't See Eye to Eye | Election In Libya? Gaddafi Accused of War Crimes >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Deep thoughts.... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 10:03:22 AM EST
    I will only vote for Michelle Bachman if her VP is named Turner

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 10:05:13 AM EST
    Takin Care OF Business as the campaign song.

    or Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet (none / 0) (#4)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 10:08:35 AM EST
    Thats the TSA Theme Song.... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 10:41:57 AM EST
    We hadn't seen nuthin' yet, till they went searching in a 95 year old wheelchair bound woman's diaper.

    ye gods, I had not heard that one yet (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 10:46:21 AM EST
    At what point do we collectively say 'Ya know what? I'm willing to get on this plane even with the 1 in a million chance that the toddlers and the old folks in wheelchairs are carrying bombs'. What cowards have we become.

    A better question would be (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 10:52:01 AM EST
    What idiots do we hire to run government programs?

    Insult to injury.... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 11:04:12 AM EST
    no apology, they stand by it!

    "We have reviewed the circumstances involving this screening and determined that our officers acted professionally and according to proper procedure."

    Much like the DEA invading Pitkin Cty...they require no validation from us.  We're all subject, and we're all suspect.  


    Yeah, why can't they be (none / 0) (#22)
    by observed on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 11:06:19 AM EST
    as customer friendly as Sprint, or a bank?

    At least ya can tell... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 11:13:31 AM EST
    Sprint and The Bank to go scratch...if ya wanna travel the orb, ya gotta deal with these TSA sickos.  And if you give 'em some lip, out come the chains...powers Sprint and The Bank don't have...yet.  They're just deputies to the police state without arrest powers, as of now.

    So just hire Blackwater. (none / 0) (#28)
    by observed on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 11:34:37 AM EST
    I"m sure they'll be more sensitive.

    I'll pass... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 11:40:53 AM EST
    on the Blackwater, and rather the TSA just chill out and rejoin the realm of the sane.  

    If the poor old lady had a Depends Bomb, she coulda set it off in the terminal and killed a buncha people just as easily....it's not only degrading and inhumane, it's f*ckin' pointless security theater.


    Fri. 8:30 a.m., many families traveling. (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 12:15:12 PM EST
    TSA is extremely slow at security.  Why, training in progress.  I saw the guy at the computer screen scrutinizing my baggie of liquids very closely.

    Ru-Roh Reorge.... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    Training?  What other new indiginity techniques could they possibly have in store?

    Exactly. And some day something (none / 0) (#47)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 12:58:29 PM EST
    major probably will happen in a terminal and they will have to move the theater staging elsewhere, or admit to its limitations and bring it back to something reasonable.

    Why I still watch Bill Maher even though (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 10:13:25 AM EST
    he may be a sexist pig:

    "Last time I saw a family that big, Julie Andrews was helping it escape the Nazis"


    "It would be a shame if Obama left office without ever having tried a Democratic policy."


    This week's show (none / 0) (#31)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 11:36:30 AM EST
    was pretty good.

    I thought he had a decent point (none / 0) (#32)
    by CST on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 11:40:51 AM EST
    on big families too.  Not that I think we should be going the China route, but a little personal responsibility here isn't such a bad thing.  Of course that's a little hard to do if you're terrified of birth control.  Overpopulation is a real problem though (again - I do not think we should be legislating the size of families, but I do reserve the right to pass personal judgement for being irresponsible).  Obviously foster kids are a different situation.

    Bill Maher frustrates me.  He has so much potential, but I feel like a lot of times he is just a charicature of everything conservatives hate about liberals.  I think I would not like to be one of his "panel" - they rarely add anything of value, and I feel like the format doesn't necessarily accommodate real discussion.  But when he's on, he's really on.


    Really think so?... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 11:48:29 AM EST
    Bill Maher's panel is the one exception I'd make to appear on television...just to pull a Zach and do a jay on Live TV:)

    It's hard to hit a homerun every week, I think he often has great panels...he errs when he gets three political pundit types...need one Joe or Jane Blow entertainer to make it lively and less wonkish...like when Mos Def is on the panel.


    I think the caricatures on both sides (none / 0) (#37)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 12:01:30 PM EST
    have elements of truth, so sometimes any liberal or conservative on TV feeds into the respective stereotype. I don't know how someone being honest about their opinions would avoid that. I think his personality can be grating, but I appreciate the fact that he will say what he thinks.

    Some panels are better than others - sometimes the mix of people just does not work. I do like it when there is a mix of different backgrounds.


    Agree with Maher on the big (none / 0) (#38)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 12:10:16 PM EST
    families, and with 7 billion people on the planet, half of whom want to live like Americans, that's too many people trying to live the wasteful life.

    As for his panels, I was intrigued by NYT columnist David Carr last show, someone I wasn't familiar with.  

    There was the discussion of all the GOP RWery happening at the state level across the land, and in particular with Gov Chris Christie in Maher's home state of NJ where he'd gone to public school, currently under attack apparently by Christie and his New Christie Minstrels in the lege.  

    Maher says something to the effect that NJ used to be the place where smart people lived as contrasted with places like Alabama and Kansas.  Carr responds, "If you're talking about KS, Missouri -- they represent the dance of the low-sloping foreheads.... Did I just say that aloud?"

    Very amusing exchange.  I like David Carr.


    and we wonder (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 12:59:37 PM EST
    why wingers think liberals are elitists:

    Maher says something to the effect that NJ used to be the place where smart people lived as contrasted with places like Alabama and Kansas. Carr responds, "If you're talking about KS, Missouri -- they represent the dance of the low-sloping foreheads.... Did I just say that aloud?"

    Are we not supposed to say that some people (none / 0) (#55)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 01:16:04 PM EST
    are smarter than others? I know intelligence is not everything that is important about people, and IQ is an imperfect measure, but strictly speaking about IQ, statistics back him up.  

    I've long said the 'What's the matter with Kansas' thing is about values - people putting social values above economic ones, which is a perfectly rational decision for them to make.

    "sloping foreheads"...Carr is probably sorry he said that out loud but I doubt it will cost himr many readers. He did not get any applause when he was introduced. No one knows who he is.


    the comments cited (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 01:23:15 PM EST
    are code language for bashing of the white working class & the white lower middle class, the very voters the Democrats have a big problem with because of the Dems' own corporate economic policies & because of sh!t like this from the upper-middle-class/Whole Foods Nation faction of the Democratic base

    I have to admit I slept through (none / 0) (#64)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 01:38:51 PM EST
    that part of the show. I will have to watch the replay and see what they were talking about regarding Christie. That clip comes in too late. I don't know who they were taking about Christie pandering too. Perhaps it is something truly inane I would agree deserves bashing, regardless of how it looks to voters who support it.

    You didn't sleep through (none / 0) (#99)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 03:26:51 PM EST
    that part -- you would only have seen it if you went into Overtime on the Net with Bill.  

    Discussion context (about halfway in) is NJ Gov Chris Christie apparently considering some bill to allow creationism/intell design to be taught in the public schools of Maher's former home state.  Bill remarks that things have really gone downhill since he was a public school grad of that once pretty good (educationally at least) state, or are in danger of going the way of places like KS and AL.

    Guest David Carr then chimes in with his humorous remark which I applauded above and again here, as it relates to the serious downgrading of public education plus the introduction of religious indoctrination -- at least according to the reporting from Maher about what Christie and the GOP/TP are up to now in NJ.


    Christie (none / 0) (#110)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 07:39:29 PM EST
    Is a smart cookie. He is the running back on the other team that looks like a joke and then drops four TDs on you and laughs to the win.  If I am the nominee I want him or Bachmann as a running mate.

    Speaking from personal knowledge: (none / 0) (#84)
    by the capstan on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 02:37:36 PM EST
    New Jersey was the state that supplied South Carolina (esp. Clemson) with so many of its out-of-state students.  Who had fewer smarts, the New Jersey folk or the country bumpkins?

    Of course (none / 0) (#80)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 02:30:00 PM EST
    For anyone, like Maher, who calls themselves "pro choice", it's a bit hypocritcal to decry those who choose to have big families.  Maher may not approve of the choices made by those who have big families, but it still is a choice.

    Huh? You have to agree with everyone's choices, (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 02:33:44 PM EST
    or stop staying they have a right to choose?

    What sense does that make? If I don't agree with how you vote am I a hypocrite for agreeing with your right to vote?


    it is a choice (none / 0) (#82)
    by CST on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 02:33:02 PM EST
    and I don't think Maher or anyone else has suggested making it anything but a choice.

    Lots of legal things are choices.  Just because I (or he) don't approve doesn't mean they should be illegal.  I am happy to have the right wing's disapproval of any and all of my choices.  They are free to disapprove.  They are not free to ban.

    I choose to disapprove.  I don't find that hypocritical at all.


    Sure (none / 0) (#85)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 02:44:48 PM EST
    But in many lefty circles you don't hear that same defense of someone who says abortion is murder.  Yes, they want to make it illegal, but it won't ever really completely be outlawed, so they are just advocating a position.  In many lefty circles (and on Maher's show) those people are mocked as stupid and ignorant hicks.

    Choice goes both ways.  Many people think it's stupid to use abortion as birth control .

    Maher is a complete hypocrite.


    no (none / 0) (#87)
    by CST on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 02:49:42 PM EST
    What part of "they're trying to make illegal" don't you understand?  No one is trying to ban righties from having kids.  How is that in any way hypocritical?

    And in fact, they are actively trying (and in a lot of cases, succeeding) to make it illegal.  So no, it's not just a position or an opinion.


    Choice is choice (none / 0) (#90)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 02:56:33 PM EST
    Your logic (and Maher's) is faulty in that you assume everyone who has a big family is a right wing nut job who hates birth control and is actively seeking to overturn Roe.  You're probably right in many cases, but I thought sweeping generalizations are not very "Democratic"'

    what? (none / 0) (#93)
    by CST on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 02:59:04 PM EST
    no, I do not assume everyone who has a big family falls into that group.  Not in the slightest.  I do not think having a big family is a very responsible choice at this juncture due to environmental reasons - for anyone.  The other comment about birth control was ribbing that was specificly directed to the people (GOP candidates) being highlighted on the show.  Sorry if that was not clear.

    gah (none / 0) (#94)
    by CST on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 03:00:00 PM EST

    In my circles... (none / 0) (#92)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 02:58:56 PM EST
    lots of people have a moral issue with abortion, but none want it prohibited.

    Just because you don't think right-to-lifers will ever be succesful in re-criminalizing is beside the point...they wanna use the law to make criminals of those who make different choices....not cool.  Nobody is saying be like China with a reproduction cap, they're just saying it is a selfish thing to do in an over-populated over-consuming world with dwindling resources.  It's a valid point, once somebody talks about passing a law it becomes tyrannical and they lose me.

    I'm a pursuit of hapiness guy...if having 15 kids makes you happy have fun feeding them all.  Just let me live my life the way I want to...let freedom ring.


    I'll give her a go if she stops (none / 0) (#3)
    by observed on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 10:07:21 AM EST
    bashing her stepsister.

    Sher Scares Me (none / 0) (#52)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 01:06:19 PM EST
    I saw her today in an interview and she seemed lucid, like normal.  Nothing bad to say about Obama, a real compromiser.  Not one bit of craziness seeped out.  Even said Obama was all about America when asked about her comment suggesting he was un-American.

    She is one point behind Romney.

    Chris Wallace on Fox News asked her is she was a flake.  She refused to accept his apology.  Too funny.

    The interview I saw was a descent candidate, had I not known anything about her, I would think she was normal.  

    That scares me straight, that will get me off the couch and actually be first inline to vote for Obama.  Something I don't really want to do.


    She (none / 0) (#111)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 07:41:24 PM EST
    Scares this doo doo out of me. She is a real politician unlike Palin and has ability.

    Looks like they've already (none / 0) (#6)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 10:21:08 AM EST
    erected a statue of her in Minneapolis.  Here she is apparently in the process of tossing her hat into the ring.

    soooo funny. (none / 0) (#7)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 10:25:58 AM EST
    there is a resemblance, at least in the bronze depiction.

    She's got spunk (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Dadler on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 10:30:42 AM EST
    I hate spunk!

    Couldn't resist -- spunky MB just (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 11:01:53 AM EST
    makes me think about what if spunky MTM had come along holding some very far-right and far-out Phylis Schlafly type of political beliefs.

    Well, there is at least that vague facial resemblance, from Mary in the MTM show of the 70s.  And the perky personality.


    Or if WJM was a Fox affiliate! (none / 0) (#51)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 01:04:50 PM EST
    I can see Ted Baxter doing a Glenn Beck riff.

    Ahahah! (none / 0) (#43)
    by lilburro on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 12:21:24 PM EST
    A+!  That is funny.

    As much as Michelle Bachmann's policies and sense of self hurt my head, and as much as I would never vote for her, I do like seeing her run.  


    Ya know what, I do too. (none / 0) (#45)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 12:50:02 PM EST
    I was just listening to the news on the way back from lunch and listening to her give her rationale for running. I don't agree with her policies at all, but she has a cogent theory of governance and seems to have more of a reason to run than a lot of the other ego trippers (I'm talking to you Newt, Mitt).

    Does not mean she will not drive me nuts with her bad ideas, but no more than the rest of them do.


    Yeah she's a little different... (none / 0) (#54)
    by lilburro on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 01:10:56 PM EST
    she has done a good job over the past few years building up a political base for herself.  I guess the thing I find likable about her is that unlike many of the other creeps (Beck, Palin, etc.) who seem to view the Tea Party as a cash cow that needs maintaining, she seems to take it seriously.  So much of Fox News is just stirring sh*t to make money IMO.  It feels like Sarah Palin has run for President several million times, but she hasn't actually done it.  Bachmann for better or worse enjoys being a pol and is not just doing this as an attention-getting stunt.

    Clearing the air? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 10:26:07 AM EST
    The United States spends $20.2 billion annually on air conditioning for troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan -- more than NASA's entire budget, NPR reported.

    In fact, the same amount of money that keeps soldiers cool is the amount the G-8 has committed to helping the fledgling democracies in Tunisia and Egypt.

    -- Cost of air conditioning for U.S. troops in MidEast more than NASA budget

    Well you can't very well keep troops (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 10:36:22 AM EST
    in the desert for 10 years without air conditioning...hey, I know, lets get the troops out of the desert.

    Maybe if we were not making it easier to have long wars, there would not be long wars.


    No war? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 10:39:26 AM EST
    Let's not get too radical here. What would they do with the pentagon budget that is larger than all 50 state governments combined spend for the health, education, welfare, and safety of 308 million Americans?

    Oh, they'll find something else to (none / 0) (#13)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 10:43:02 AM EST
    spend it on. Weaponizing space is on their list. Is it more or less futile than air conditioning the desert? Time will tell.

    Maybe those 308 million Americans (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 10:46:47 AM EST
    could start withholding their taxes and use them to 'weaponize' elections, to get some real results out of those elected?

    Wouldn't surprise me that (none / 0) (#17)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 10:54:56 AM EST
    the Pentagon has weaponizing space on their agenda.

    I think years ago, just before his death, Werner Von Braun was privately warning friends about this scenario, with our military brass using an ever-escalating list of potential threats to justify it.


    And all the while (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Nemi on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 12:00:48 PM EST
    I can't be allowed to use incandescent light bulbs. I have to sacrifice those to help reduce electricity use and greenhouse gases. The ironi!

    Well.... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 12:15:22 PM EST
    You don't really think unrestricted consumption of resources and energy is fair to the climate, environment, and to everyone else, do you? ;-)

    You're right of course (none / 0) (#103)
    by Nemi on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 04:02:45 PM EST
    I've been thinking - we also ought to do something serious about all those cows, you know, farting. Burping too; adding to the global warming. Maybe a beef ban? ;)

    And after all ... we'll always have Wiener schnitzels.


    We also could maybe (none / 0) (#106)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 06:48:20 PM EST
    build an airtight dome over Washington, DC? The pressure inside it from all the hot air should be enough that we could drill taps into it to drive industrial scale turbines to produce electricity, no?

    It should be a self renewing source, too... and with the dome we'd have it isolated enough that it won't poison the outside environment anymore?

    PS: politics makes me crazy sometimes. That ever happen to you?


    And then shove (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Nemi on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 06:45:24 AM EST
    all the cows in there too? Brilliant! I mean aren't all these gasses renewable?
    politics makes me crazy sometimes. That ever happen to you?
    Whatever gave you that idea? :D

    Booman tells me (none / 0) (#18)
    by lilburro on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 11:00:46 AM EST
    that Nancy Pelosi is demanding a seat at the table for debt ceiling negotiations (Booman).  I don't know how much power she has or will have but I'm glad she's getting involved.

    Dodgers file for bankruptcy, (none / 0) (#23)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 11:08:21 AM EST
    and Manny Ramirez is the one of, if not the, largest unsecured creditor...

    Among the 40 largest unsecured claims listed in the bankruptcy filing are former Dodger slugger Manny Ramirez at nearly $21 million; Andruw Jones at $11 million; pitcher Hiroki Kuroda at $4.4 million; and the Chicago White Sox at $3.5 million.

    Blago (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 11:10:27 AM EST
    Since the judge did not send the jury a note to close out the two they could not agree on, i would guess there are at least some guilty verdicts.  Would a judge let them give up on two if they had 18 NG's?

    Pres. Obama is going with his gut (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 11:31:06 AM EST
    now:  LAT

    As a senior administration official put it: "He asked everyone, if we're serious about transition, then when? When are we going to do it?
     [Emphasis added.]

    Nothing here re Geithner.  

    MSNBC reports (none / 0) (#29)
    by Makarov on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 11:34:50 AM EST
    They reached a verdict on 18 counts, and were hung on 2 counts.

    Guilty on 17 counts (none / 0) (#91)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 02:58:32 PM EST
    Scalia and the Court (none / 0) (#30)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 11:36:21 AM EST
    Got one right today on the video game ruling.

    Hands off of my Grand Theft Auto and Saints Row please.  Free speech wins.

    Ruling was as to CA statute barring (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 01:19:38 PM EST
    direct sales of "violent" video games to minors.  Are you a minor?

    Interesting visual graph of federal budget: (none / 0) (#35)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 11:49:53 AM EST
    Saturday delay in Anthony trial (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 12:12:10 PM EST
    was for an emergency competency hearing for the defendant. The defense asked for it based on a private conversation with Ms. Anthony. She has been determined to be competent to continue.

    To each his own -- (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 12:21:18 PM EST
    me, I no longer have much interest in these private tragedy criminal trials, unless there's some clear larger legal interest at stake.

    Moi, I'm waiting for that trial of WI Sup Ct Justice Prosser for the alleged violent assault on a fellow justice.

    Or the impeachment trial of another Justice, one Clarence Thomas, for conflict of interest and repeated failure to fully disclose financial details.

    I know, I know.  I'll be waiting quite a while for those -- IOKIYAR and all ...


    I thought it was interesting because (none / 0) (#46)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 12:52:19 PM EST
    NONE of the talking head speculation (uh, excuse me, presenting educated ideas of what might be happening) that I heard came up with this possibility.

    BTD (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 12:46:01 PM EST
    has a diary up at the orange saying that people should vote for Obama based on Roe V. Wade. It's not very convincing to me.

    I live in GA though so it really doesn't matter what I do. Obama's not going to carry GA.

    Political bottom-line (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 01:07:20 PM EST
    For me & a number of people I know, the Supreme Court is the issue.  When all is said & done, when one considers what is a generational ramification--not 2 years, not 4, not even the 8 of two full terms--the issue is the Supreme Court.

    Granted even ole' always-Democrat me found the reminder of the reality about who appoints Supreme Court justices a bit stale...in the past. Reality has a way of impinging, tho. Witness the import to our society of the United Citizens case. (No one needs to remind anyone here, I'm sure, of the Bush v. Gore 2000 decision and the 5 to 4 split in the Court and in the decision.)

    We have a precarious 5 to 4 split. Looking at length of service, etc., there are very good odds that the President elected in 2012 will have the opportunity to replace at least 1.  And, it doesn't take a math professor, to figure that a 6 to 3 split--a split which would be much more pronounced and harder to overcome--will result from the election of a Repupblican conservative.
    In short: For those following the Court, there does not appear to be an argument that would say there is no difference between Democratic & Republican justices. Read the decisions. The differences are glaring...in every area with which liberals are concerned.

    Other issues come & go. They are important, of course. But, an election is usually less than 2 years away <legislative> in which change or redress can be had.  That is not the case with the Supremes. That is a case of 20 to 30+ years of living with the results of a single Presidential election. That reality--to me--overrides any disappointment, pique, or angry moments.


    So you would rate "saving" (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by observed on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 01:43:18 PM EST
    the Supreme Court over a major depression?
    What about global warming policy---possibly the most important issue of all?

    No, I would not "rate" it over (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 02:56:25 PM EST
    "a major depression." We have not had a "major depression" since the 1930s. We have had a major recession, but by any standards--whether economic macrospeak or the prolonged almost decade of suffering on the level of the Depression Generation--we have not had what anyone classifies as a major Depression. (The suffering by those who have been hit by unemployment & other aspects of our latest recession is very bad. No one denies that.)

    Again...the reality is that a 5 to 4 Supreme Court split can lead to generational suffering in a number of areas that we say we want to address.


    yea (none / 0) (#56)
    by CST on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 01:17:12 PM EST
    my problem with the Roe v. Wade argument is that it ignores all of the other critical supreme court issues.  Roe v. Wade is one of many potential 5-4 splits.

    Here's the thing (none / 0) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 02:13:04 PM EST
    though: only Ginsberg is likely to retire if anyone does and all Obama would be doing is replacing her. It's unlikely that anyone will resign in the next four years. Yeah, it's really long term so it's kind of hard to say this election is so important when the long term is really the concern.

    if a GOP pres is elected (none / 0) (#76)
    by CST on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 02:16:19 PM EST
    they will be the ones who are likely replacing Ginsberg.

    Yes (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 02:20:10 PM EST
    and there will still be the votes to overturn roe v. wade as there are now. This was a very serious argument for voting for Kerry in '04 and I did vote for him but once Bush appointed two justices that are anti-choice, I don't see it as being a salient short term voting issue anymore.

    And then you're likely to have a GOP senate who will hold up any appointee. Heck, I wouldn't put it past the GOP to hold up a Supreme Court nominee for four years until Obama is out of office.


    6-3 (none / 0) (#81)
    by CST on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 02:30:28 PM EST
    is a lot harder to overcome than 5-4.  Especially when you consider the long-term ramifications.  By 2016 or 2020 there could be some GOP justices leaving no matter who is president.  Scalia and Kennedy are both getting up there.

    Actually (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 02:47:31 PM EST
    that's why I'm thinking '16 is going to be way more important than '12. The GOP supremes are going to be "aging" out of the court.

    you need both (none / 0) (#88)
    by CST on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 02:50:59 PM EST
    to be truly effective, replace Ginsburg with a Republican and we are even further back.  Plus, they're already mid-70s.  A lot could happen in the next 5 years.

    As long as we're talking about the (none / 0) (#95)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 03:03:15 PM EST
    Supreme Court, here's a question that I've been wanting to ask: if Ginsburg and Breyer were to retire during the current presidential term, and were replaced with justices of reasonably equal liberal credibility (not sure how likely that would be, but let's go with that for the sake of argument), would that make it easier or harder to decide whether to vote for Obama in 2012?  

    If preserving the status quo in terms of left/right were someone's overriding concern and issue, would that free someone to not vote for him in 2012, because of great dissatisfaction with the rest of his performance, or would that obligate someone to send him back for another term, in gratitude, in spite of that general and not insignificant disappointment on other issues?

    I'm jsut curious if anyone's considered this scenario and what they think their response would be.


    I would probably (none / 0) (#97)
    by CST on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 03:14:21 PM EST
    point out the age of Kennedy and Scalia.  4 years can be a long time at that point.

    Covering an early Ginsberg or Breyer (none / 0) (#113)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 08:03:05 PM EST
    retirement is only one part of it. The goal is to change the 5 to 4 Republican split to a 5 to 4 split in favor of the kinds of issues that most liberals espouse (or get as close as possible.) To do that means that a Democratic President is central to nominating that 5th justice should Kennedy retire (a strong possibility) or any of the other four conservatives.

    It can be grating to some, clearly, to think about the power of the Jucicial Branch. But, especially in the circumstances of these political times (plug in any issue you want...almost) it is paramount to achieve that reversal on the 5 to 4. (Frankly, looking at cases from the current ruling 5 majority regarding individuals vis-a-vis the corporation, the state, authority as a general rule would induce apoplexy in most TL readers.) It is more than preserving the status quo--whether in Roe v. Wade or other longstanding matters--because this Court has evidenced a lack of adherence to traditional precedent (See campaign spending cases.)

    It is a hard one to get past...that pesky Supreme Court. The "elephant in the room" in more ways than one. (Just for fun: Think about a Court that shows a tendency to overturn precedent...think about what happens when a favorite position might get legislative ok, but then face a decidedly political Court on the other side of your issue(s). For reference, see Bush v. Gore, and the trhowing out of an almost 200-year aversion by the Court to getting involved in a "political thicket.)


    We have no idea (none / 0) (#112)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 07:46:57 PM EST
    @who will retire from the SupremeCt in the next few years. While Justice Ginsberg probably is the most likely, please recognize...how to say it politely...that a number of that entity are not spring chickens, etc.  It is foolhardy to assume that outcome at the Supremes, because the years have shown surprises at times also surprising. The issue: The makeup of the Supreme Court matters a lot...directly affecting our lives in many areas (and sometimes, rather quickly)...and it matters for a long time. Think back to the historical treatment of how FDR quickly found that out; don't forget that he lost some important early rounds to the Supremes, but soon had the unforeseen opportunity to pack (attempt to pack) the Supreme Court with those perceived to be (and who were) more amenable to his positions.

    I fear, Ba6thDem, that you might be willing to gamble a lot on too little info re the Court's likelihood. Don't let the antipathy toward Obama blind the almost certain results of ignoring Supreme Court consequences.


    I wonder (none / 0) (#50)
    by CST on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    if it has anything to do with this article that came out today in the nytimes.

    "Since Nebraska passed the first 20-week limit last year, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Oklahoma and, this month, Alabama have followed. A similar law has advanced in the Iowa legislature, and anti-abortion campaigners have vowed to promote such laws in more states next year.

    The laws directly conflict with the key threshold set by the Supreme Court: that abortion cannot be banned until the fetus becomes viable. Viability, the ability to survive outside the womb, usually occurs at the 24th week of pregnancy or later, and is determined in individual cases by a doctor,"

    In other words, we are headed for a supreme showdown.


    Today's NYT article was the impetus (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 01:17:12 PM EST
    for posting the DK diary today.  David Mizner commented it's too early to post such a diary.  Some commenters jumped all over him.  Excellent, concise, persuasive diary.  

    I wonder why it wasn't posted here... (none / 0) (#59)
    by CST on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 01:20:04 PM EST
    maybe I'll have to start reading dkos - but I find the format incredibly cumbersome, there is just too much going on.

    I did not think it was a Talk Left post (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 01:36:43 PM EST
    Why? We have one Obama do-or- (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 01:42:07 PM EST
    die person here, but many more at DK.  Aren't you trying to persuade those who indicate they won't vote for Obama again or never did?

    I don't think I need to make (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 01:43:41 PM EST
    the argument here.

    TL readers know the argument.

    My repeating it won't have much effect.



    Are you thinking "undecideds" (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 01:46:30 PM EST
    or "won't vote" or "will vote anybody but Obama" there will be persuaded?  

    Yes to some extent (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 01:48:52 PM EST
    But the actual purpose was to provide what I believe is a productive example for Obama supporters to try and persuade Obama skeptics (as opposed to calling them PUMAs, firebaggers, trolls, etc.)

    A way to make the argument that MIGHT work.


    First I read the diary and thought, (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 01:20:58 PM EST
    why post this at Daily Kos, isn't that preaching to the choir.  After reading the many comments, I find that ain't the case.  

    Yes (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 02:17:28 PM EST
    but if those laws are challenged tomorrow RVW will probably be overturned. Even if Obama is reelected, RVW will probably be overturned.

    There's a reason no one is putting up a court challenge to those laws right now.

    So to me, it's not a persuasive argument for Obama. It's a halfway decent argument for voting for Dems long term.

    But I don't think it's going to be factor in '12 that much because the economy is going to trump everything else.


    Prohibition indirectly causes... (none / 0) (#63)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 01:37:08 PM EST
    flesh-eating disease...I sh*t you not.

    Ugh, that is horrible (none / 0) (#66)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 01:42:32 PM EST
    Now, how long before insurance stops covering treatment?

    It is horrible... (none / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 01:50:06 PM EST
    and I don't know who is worse...the unscrupulous gangster who cuts his coke with this crap, or our unscrupulous leaders who make it all possible.

    Not a problem for I though...

    The pharmacuetical grade is Flintstones Vitamins compared to this sh*t.


    Maybe now that people are aware (none / 0) (#73)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 01:55:37 PM EST
    of the side effects of that stuff they will stop mixing it in.

    They need to be asking themselves WWKRD?


    Like all the legal drugs we import (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 01:43:10 PM EST
    from China are so pure?

    Ask the FDA... (none / 0) (#74)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 01:56:19 PM EST
    I believe we pay them to maintain such marketplace standards, so we all don't have to go to independent testing labs.

    When in doubt, just don't go to the crime lab...better off with a second grader with a microscope and a chemistry set.


    Rod (none / 0) (#79)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 02:26:03 PM EST
    guilty on 17 of 20?

    Obligatory (none / 0) (#101)
    by CST on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 03:50:50 PM EST
    Whitey update of the day.

    He's still taking up the front page of the Globe.  Every day since this story has come out he's occupied top billing.  I wonder what event will be the first to take his place.

    Today he is in the news for worrying if press bias, and the massive publicity will mean he is unable to have a fair trial.  Honestly, he's got a decent(ish) point.  I guess there are some people around here who haven't heard of him.  I wonder if he will try to have the trial moved somewhere else, or if that's even possible.  Ironically, if this had happened 16 years ago he probably would've had a biased jury as well.  Biased in the sense that they would have been terrified to rule against him.

    Hmm...I don't know. (none / 0) (#107)
    by dk on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 06:52:00 PM EST
    Seems like the crimes occurred so long ago, you could probably find an impartial jury around here.  Sure, there's a lot of press coverage now, but as you point out that will eventually die down a little.  

    The bigger problem may be making sure you find 12 people who never saw The Departed.  :)


    the ironic thing about the departed (none / 0) (#108)
    by CST on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 07:00:29 PM EST
    Is that if all the allegations are true, that was almost a sugarcoated version of Whitey.

    I do not think he will be, or should be, successful at moving the trial, if he tried to.   I think he'll get as fair a trial here as he would anywhere.


    Yah, I agree. (none / 0) (#109)
    by dk on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 07:06:42 PM EST
    Of course, putting my own test to myself, I couldn't sit on the jury since I've seen The Departed a few times.  I like that movie.  In fact, I think it's one of Scorcese's best (Goodfellas had its moments..but please, Ray Liotta??).   :)

    And a cautionary tale (none / 0) (#105)
    by Zorba on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 05:13:41 PM EST
    for the über-wealthy who own sports teams and are contemplating divorce.  Get your ownership ducks in a row first, people.  I'll join you on the couch if you'll pass me some popcorn, Donald.  I'll even bring some beer.  ;-)