Life is mostly good despite what you hear

One of the problems with elections is that candidates need to trash each other and explain how terrible conditions are today so that they can promise to improve them tomorrow. There are indeed challenges. But generally life is good and improving. Decade by decade, the lives of most Americans improve. Politicians try to convince us that we are wimps and victims and that they need to fight for us or save us. I just hate wimps and victims and politicians who say that I am one or the other can go to hell.

The guy I like is John Kasich. He may be a lost cause, but I will vote for him in the Virginia primary.

It is not pleasant but not surprising that Republicans talk about bad conditions. After all, Democrat Barack Obama has been president since 2008 and they want to replace him.

But what is the excuse for Democrats like Hillary and Bernie? Should they not be pointing to the good times ushered in by Obama? But they are even more angry and negative.

This from Michael Barone - "Hillary Clinton, going first (a lady's privilege?), painted a dismal picture of a country laboring under terrible economic difficulties and rife with vicious prejudice against blacks, women, LGBT persons and so forth. This was punctuated by just occasional bows to President Obama's record (she needs the votes of black Democrats, who have a high regard for him and think he's undervalued by whites).

"Bernie Sanders painted an even bleaker picture. All gains in the society go to the top 1 percent and to the criminal but surprisingly unprosecuted denizens of Wall Street. (Sanders and others of his ilk lament that no Wall Streeters have been prosecuted, but don't specify what crimes they've committed. Some others hold to the quaint notion that you can't jail people without showing they violated an actual -- you know -- law.)"

So if the country is in the toilet, either it is mostly Obama's fault, since he has been president and should have fixed it by now OR (the one I believe more) they are lying to us about the extent that they can make changes when they are president.

In any case, they don't have to trash my country to make themselves seem more like saviors. America is not going to hell, but the negative candidates should go there first.

And if you are a wimp or a victim, let me emphasize. Tough to be you. If you want to change your outcomes change your behaviors.

Posted by Christine & John at February 12, 2016 9:36 AM
Comments
Comment #402483

Good Post C/J.

Watching the debate last night made me wonder why anyone would legally or illegally come to this God-Awful country. Our poor and downtrodden masses should also be seeking sanctuary in Europe.

We were told that our government is failing nearly everyone except for a few rich folks. The police were mostly demonized and it was suggested they needed to be “demilitarized”. Does that mean disarmed?

The state of Wisconsin took a terrible beating by both Clinton and Sanders. I guess the citizens there are out of touch with the rest of the nation. The majority electorate of that state must be insane.

Neither candidate blamed President Bush for all our woes which was refreshing. And both praised President Obama for….(what)? Being half Black?

It appears that more government intervention in our lives is the answer along with higher taxes and greater national debt.

Frankly, the Liberal identified “clowns” on the Right suit me better than the easily perceived “devils” on the Left.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 12, 2016 12:58 PM
Comment #402485

Read this in a cartoon…luv it!

“I think you should pay for your own mortgage, birth control, college loans, food and cell phones.

This isn’t because I’m Conservative. It’s because I’m an adult.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 12, 2016 1:24 PM
Comment #402487

It’s funny how several people can watch the same thing but have different takes on what they saw. As I understand it, that is the problem with “eye witness testimony”. It is sometimes very unreliable.

I didn’t watch the whole debate (college basketball), but what I did tune into seemed to be a very promising conversation on how to resolve some very troubling issues. The least decorous moment might have been when Sanders mumbled something about a “low blow” that Clinton made, I think it was in regard to his foreign policy experience. He really should avoid that. Not sure what it was but it was nothing like what we hear from the Republican debates, nothing.

Speaking of the Republican debates I see it playing out this way. Carson drops out after SC, Rubio should (his candidacy is like a dead man walking after that last debate), Trump will pull Cruz into the carnival geek contest of who can bite the heads off of the most chickens, Kasich and Bush will just look at those two with wondered disbelief and attempt to discuss actual issues, policies and possible solutions. For my part I think Kasich and Bush are the only real people in this Republican process of nomination, the others are more like cartoon characters, and it should come down to their ideas and abilities. But hey lots of people like a carnival sideshow even though it has never really appealed to me.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 12, 2016 2:17 PM
Comment #402488

Speaks wrote; “…very promising conversation on how to resolve some very troubling issues.”

Please share as I don’t recall anything “promising”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 12, 2016 2:22 PM
Comment #402489

If I have to explain how to envision something as “promising” we might be here for a very long time, well you would be. I however can’t devote much time here. How about you just believe me when I say that I enjoyed the debate and found the candidates performances as promising. You are free to hold a different point of view, as I am certain you will. You see we are of different political ideological motivations therefore what we each interpret as promising is very different since the promises we look for are very different. That is OK, we can and should do that. Now I don’t see much promising from the Republican side of the aisle but I don’t ask you to tell me why. I use my reasoning to attempt to determine why you see promise and I don’t. Try it.

BTW I pay for my own mortgage, don’t need birth control but would help someone who did, and I help pay for college loans, food and cell phones for the people I think need it the most, my grandchildren. But I suppose it doesn’t upset me if I can feel as though my taxes might help people I don’t know take care of some of those things if it helps them in a difficult time. I’m pretty sure you don’t feel the same.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 12, 2016 2:36 PM
Comment #402490

Royal and Speaks

I am just sick of the grievance industry. Everybody seems to want to be a victim and to make others pay for their problems.

I was watching how Hillary and Bernie now back those BLM idiots. You know according to Washington Post database - According to the Post database, in 2015 officers killed 662 whites and Hispanics, and 258 blacks. (The overwhelming majority of all those police-shooting victims were attacking the officer, often with a gun.) Using the 2014 homicide numbers as an approximation of 2015’s, those 662 white and Hispanic victims of police shootings would make up 12% of all white and Hispanic homicide deaths. That is three times the proportion of black deaths that result from police shootings.

The lower proportion of black deaths due to police shootings can be attributed to the lamentable black-on-black homicide rate. There were 6,095 black homicide deaths in 2014—the most recent year for which such data are available—compared with 5,397 homicide deaths for whites and Hispanics combined. Almost all of those black homicide victims had black killers.

Posted by: C&J at February 12, 2016 2:51 PM
Comment #402491

I’m pretty sure you don’t feel the same (about helping people).
Posted by: Speak4all at February 12, 2016 2:36 PM

You would be very wrong Speak.

You (donate?) by having government take some of your taxes and give it to those THEY consider worthy. This is totally involuntary. You hope these are the same folks you consider deserving.

I donate my own (after-tax) money directly, or thru a charity, to those whom I consider worthy of my help.

As for debate “promises” you find agreeable I will use my “reasoning” to identify them as you suggest.

1. More debt to be paid by future generations

2. More spending on those able, but unwilling, to work.

3. Greater intervention by the national government into local and state police operations.

4. More restrictions on individual rights to grant more power to select groups.

5. More excuses of white racism for the government induced misery of minority citizens.

6. More pandering to our enemies so they will like us better.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 12, 2016 3:05 PM
Comment #402492

There is a lot that I don’t agree with in this life but I don’t take any of it seriously enough to make myself “sick”. I know that conservatives are angry and upset, they can be, this is a free country. I won’t be joining them in their derogation of everything and everyone they don’t like.

People are allowed to protest in this country whether they are BLM, OWS, fundamental Christians, same gender marriage opponents, women’s choice deniers, union proponents, anti-union proponents or even just regular people upset with what they see in life. Referring to them in a derogatory manner doesn’t negate their protest, it is after all a free country.

Humor helps me to understand those that I disagree with although to them it probably seems derogatory even without my intention to do so.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 12, 2016 3:13 PM
Comment #402494

And you again totally misinterpret and misquote my words. I didn’t say anything about “donating”. I said “But I suppose it doesn’t upset me if I can feel as though my taxes might help people I don’t know take care of some of those things if it helps them in a difficult time. I’m pretty sure you don’t feel the same.” You proved my point, but I already knew that. I have told you before I don’t care what you donate. I like paying taxes and hope to do so for very many years to come. I just wish I could see less of it go to a military industrial complex that has rigged the game.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 12, 2016 3:20 PM
Comment #402496

Looks like my prediction of Trump pulling Cruz into a contest is starting to take form.

Hide the chickens!

Posted by: Speak4all at February 12, 2016 3:51 PM
Comment #402497

Well looks my twitter link didn’t work. Computers are really inherently difficult because they do what you tell them to not what you want them to.

Anyway here’s an analogy of his latest tweet about Cruz:

Donald Trump on Friday afternoon threatened to sue Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) over his Canadian birth unless the Texas senator doesn’t “clean up his act.”

Trump might become the first nominee from a major political party in this country that did it on twitter tweets. Oy vey!

Posted by: Speak4all at February 12, 2016 4:18 PM
Comment #402498

So when have we not had elections where “candidates need to trash each other and explain how terrible conditions are today so that they can promise to improve them tomorrow”,C&J? Certainly not in our lifetime.

Hell Teabaggers have been doing that the past 8 years telling us how Obama is at fault for everything from the financial collapse to the war in Iraq to the country being divided. And this was when they weren’t campaigning!

But what is the excuse for Democrats like Hillary and Bernie? Should they not be pointing to the good times ushered in by Obama? But they are even more angry and negative.

I would suggest that it is because your blaming of Obama for everything is faulty logic my friend. Propaganda at it’s worse, IMHO. The American people realize we have had a do nothing Congress the past 6 years. A Congress that has had more time to go after Hillary with smoke and mirrors for every possible thing they could invent than to actually govern. Sanders has had to endure voting nay over 50 times on the repeal of Obamacare during this reign of idiocracy by conservative extremist in Congress.

Yet nothing to help whats left of the middle class, the working poor, no infrastructure repairs, nothing but supply side economics and tax breaks for corporations to ship jobs overseas and to Mexico. We have watched as Kansas and Louisiana conservatives have cut taxes and ran the bus of the road. We have seen conservatives fighting a faux voter fraud war to suppress the vote. We have seen state conservatives prohibit solar power in their states funded by the Koch Bros amongst others. Maybe that is why they are angry C&J maybe it is because they see the situation as it is not as you claim it to be.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 12, 2016 5:02 PM
Comment #402501

Obama’s job approval has been bouncing around 46-47% lately. Clearly, it is indicative of increased awareness of how much better life has gotten since 2009. How on Earth can Republicans win an election when ever more Americans approve of the incumbent party’s leadership?

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 13, 2016 12:26 AM
Comment #402502

If Hillary is not allowed to hold a security clearance how can she be Pres??

Posted by: roy ellis at February 13, 2016 10:04 AM
Comment #402503

Roy, just wait. The FBI is going to conclude that none of the emails on Clintin’s server were classified at the time they were received or sent.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 13, 2016 10:22 AM
Comment #402504

What’s the point in classifying a document that’s already been in the public domain?

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 13, 2016 1:53 PM
Comment #402505

Warped, It doesn’t matter if they were marked or not, she should know what is classified and what is not. Claiming stupidity is NOT a defense when you are SEC.of State.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at February 13, 2016 2:23 PM
Comment #402506

I found this to be a very interesting read. It certainly explains much about where we were and where we are going.

“America’s divestment of its historic national identity.”

http://www.wsj.com/article_email/donald-trumps-america-1455290458-lMyQjAxMTE2MDE5MzYxMzMwWj

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 13, 2016 3:35 PM
Comment #402507
The FBI is going to conclude that none of the emails on Clintin’s server were classified at the time they were received or sent.

They’re talking about documents that are classified, aren’t they?

How can you have a document that was not classified, but later classified? That’s like reading a news article and then the next day saying what you read was a secret.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 13, 2016 3:35 PM
Comment #402508

wp
so when names that appear on one of her e-mails and the persons named are involved in sp ops., how do you discern that those same persons would be unclassified?

I will help you with your answer. You cannot discern that they are not classified.

Of course this covers only one situation, but it is magnified hundreds of times over.

Posted by: tom humes at February 13, 2016 3:57 PM
Comment #402509

I have a lot of links, so I will answer each of you one at a time.

WW,

What’s the point in classifying a document that’s already been in the public domain?

Firstly, the law doesn’t have to make sense. What matters is what the law says, and on that matter it is clear: Government agencies are authorized to retroactively classify previously unclassified information:

Information that has not previously been disclosed to the public under proper authority may be classified or reclassified after an agency has received a request for it under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. 2204(c)(1), the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), or the mandatory review provisions of section 3.5 of this order only if such classification meets the requirements of this order and is accomplished on a document-by-document basis with the personal participation or under the direction of the agency head, the deputy agency head, or the senior agency official designated under section 5.4 of this order. The requirements in this paragraph also apply to those situations in which information has been declassified in accordance with a specific date or event determined by an original classification authority in accordance with section 1.5 of this order.

While I could attempt to speculate why retroactive classification would be needed for documents in the public domain, I have decided not to do so. It is immaterial to this case whether it made sense to retroactively classify these emails, what only matters is their status when they were created in 2009-2013.

They’re talking about documents that are classified, aren’t they?

How can you have a document that was not classified, but later classified? That’s like reading a news article and then the next day saying what you read was a secret.


Precisely. The government has claimed broad power to retroactively classify documents. Historically, this has been used to bully journalists into withholding an article from publication. Never, has a retroactive classification been used as justification for prosecution. Posted by: Warren Porter at February 13, 2016 4:48 PM
Comment #402510

WW,
Material that was not classified years ago may easily become classified today. For example, the NYT could publish a speculative article about the next generation of drones. At the time, this could be e-mailed back and forth at a government agency. Years later, the speculation may have become fact. A government agency is not about to advertise the accuracy of a speculative article from years ago, but anything now in government servers will become classified.

WP,
“Obama’s job approval has been bouncing around 46-47% lately. Clearly, it is indicative of increased awareness of how much better life has gotten since 2009. How on Earth can Republicans win an election when ever more Americans approve of the incumbent party’s leadership?”

Running against Obama makes no sense. He won over 50% of the vote in 2012 with similar approval numbers. That is just one good reason Sanders and Clinton are so reluctant to criticize him.

If its goal is to win the general election- which seems dubious- then GOP would do well to avoid criticizing Obama. It is simply incredible for someone like Rubio to say Obama deliberately weakened America. Not only is it false and highly impolitic to suggest a sitting president has committed sedition, it is stupid politics to do that. At some point, the GOP presidential candidate will need to win over some of those people who voted for Obama. Implying Obama is a traitor will not attract votes.

Some think the GOP can win by expanding the voting base so much, those 50% + will magically become a minority. There is no evidence to support this approach.

Part of the GOP unhappiness is due to the persistent spread of conspiracy theories intended to convince its base that statistics are wrong, and things are not good, but bad. Here is Donald Trump:

“Don’t believe those phony numbers when you hear 4.9 and 5 percent unemployment. The number’s probably 28, 29, as high as 35. In fact, I even heard recently 42 percent. Do you think we’d have gatherings like this if we had — if we had 5 percent unemployment do you really think we’d have these gatherings? [The Washington Post, 2/9/16]”

It is not just Trump. This is a common belief among Republicans, and it has been repeated by Limbaugh, a moderator at a debate, and others.

The unhappiness is also caused by bigotry and racism, and statements that are simply not true. It is pretty unhinged stuff. Again, here is Trump:

“So I think that the pope is a very political person. I think that he doesn’t understand the problems our country has. I don’t think he understands the danger of the open border that we have with Mexico… Mexico got him to do it because Mexico wants to keep the border just the way it is because they’re making a fortune and we’re losing.”
FOX Business, Varney & Company

Trump really, really hates Mexicans. It’s all their fault, you see.

Posted by: phx8 at February 13, 2016 5:12 PM
Comment #402511

Scalia died. That’s a game changer.

Posted by: phx8 at February 13, 2016 5:15 PM
Comment #402512
Warped, It doesn’t matter if they were marked or not, she should know what is classified and what is not. Claiming stupidity is NOT a defense when you are SEC.of State.

In my earlier comment, I made no reference to any markings or lack thereof. You are correct that the real question under consideration is this: Would a reasonable person have considered the content of those emails to be classified at the time of their creation in 2009-2013? Of course, if they were marked classified, a reasonable person would conclude that they were indeed classified and ought to act with appropriate care. However, every source on this controversy has repeated that the information on the Clinton server was not marked classified. This leads us to more ambiguous situation. For some documents, their classified nature is self-evident (ie spy satellite imagery or the identities of covert agents). Oftentimes, this sort of information is termed “born classified”.

If Clinton’s server contains such information, there is zero reason for any leniency. That said, there is no indication that the things censored in the FOIA email dumps contained such information.

so when names that appear on one of her e-mails and the persons named are involved in sp ops
Tom Humes, I have seen zero reports that Clinton’s emails identify the names of individuals involved with covert operations. I do not know what privilege makes you privy to this information, but I suspect you are simply peering into the same lousy crystal ball that has doomed many of your other predictions. A month ago, Catherine Herridge reported that some of the retroactively classified emails have now been designated as derivative from Special Access Programs (SAP) and at least one is now considered HCS-O because it is believed to be derived from a human intelligence source. Only time will tell us if this rumor is true or false. Posted by: Warren Porter at February 13, 2016 5:18 PM
Comment #402513

Good url, RF. Pretty much mirrors my last two responses in the current middle column thread.

Folks aren’t angry just to be angry. They are not really angry. We have observed the actions and inactions of the corpocracy over the last 50-60 years and want change.

I’m a good example. I’ve become a 3rd party guy for the same reason. I recognize that reform can’t be had through the corpocracy. It will take a 3rd party, and not just any 3rd party, to get reform. Reform requires a new 3rd party designed to shunt special interest money and, through 3 or 4 rules, found the party so that it can’t be corrupted.

You can’t ‘just vote them out’. That might work for a while but overtime corpocracy will be right back in power. We will never get access to Article V Convention as the corpocracy has that pathway blocked.

The crux of such a party is to establish the rules at founding and require a 66 percent majority vote by party members to change a rule. That would ensure that special interest money would be locked out forever how long the party existed.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at February 13, 2016 5:41 PM
Comment #402515

Wow! Hillbilly spent her 4 years as SOS emailing old news stories to her buddies. It’s interesting how old news has crept into the story to obfuscate the issue.

Don’t blame me for bringing up old news stories. I was only drawing a conclusion from the lame excuses being made for her having this stuff on an unsecured server.

The snake, I can’t think of his name right now, but he had it right when he said Hillbilly used a private server because she doesn’t want members of congress snooping around in her work.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 13, 2016 6:16 PM
Comment #402516

Scalia died. That’s a game changer.
Posted by: phx8 at February 13, 2016 5:15 PM

Yup, just heard the news. At 80, he was reported to be hunting in West Texas. May he rest in God’s peace.

It will be interesting to see who the nominee will be that Obama sends down to the Senate. It will have to be a moderate to get Senate approval. But, we have been surprised in the past how SC justices change during their tenure.

It will be a topic in tonight’s debate.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 13, 2016 6:24 PM
Comment #402517

He might nominate himself!

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 13, 2016 6:30 PM
Comment #402518

Obama will name a liberal. The Senate will refuse to bring it up for a vote. Scalia was the most partisan of the conservative justices, so leaving the seat open means amore liberal court no matter what. And if the next president is a Democrat, take one guess who will be nominated…
Obama will serve on the Court. And with the huge advantage in Senate seat math in this upcoming election virtually ensuring the Democrats take control, the Democratic Senate will quickly confirm him.

Elections have consequences.

Posted by: phx8 at February 13, 2016 6:31 PM
Comment #402519

phx8,

I just saw your comment. Thank you for sharing the news. For better or for worse, Scalia was an intellectual heavyweight who’s contribution to American law was invaluable. While I may disagree with his ideology, I can still appreciate the devotion Scalia had to what he viewed as the original intention of our founders.

I would be devastated if the GOP decided to play politics and extend the vacancy beyond the 10 months that remain in Obama’s term. It would set a bad precedent that would only harm the nation in the long term. Ultimately, the American people deserve 9 justices and the vacancy needs to be filled as soon as possible. FDR got in trouble for manipulating the court and I believe the same would happen to the GOP.

Everyone else, here is the final comment I put together regarding HRC’s emails:

Today, I will only address the unconfirmed rumor that some of Clinton’s “classified” emails concerned the CIA’s drone program. Emails concerning other topics may exist, and depending on the material contained within, it might be appropriate to throw the book at Hillary Clinton. Before I go any further, I will state without ambiguity: It is no trifle thing to store state secrets on an unregulated server. No leniency should be granted merely because she was Secretary of State or because she is running for President. Likewise, no leniency should be given to former SoS Powell because he chose an AOL server rather than a home-brew one in Chappaqua. An unsecured server is an unsecured server. Period.

With that said, let us look at the drone program. Firstly, the very existence of the drone program is classified. For whatever reason, our government prefers to perform double-think. Information about the drone program remains readily available in public news reports, but government confirmation of those reports is forbidden. It appears that Clinton’s emails acknowledged the existence of the program in words that are a bit too strong.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 13, 2016 6:33 PM
Comment #402520

“FDR got in trouble for manipulating the court and I believe the same would happen to the GOP.”

Warren, taking a long time to fill a SC vacancy is not even close to what FDR attempted.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 13, 2016 6:50 PM
Comment #402521
It will be interesting to see who the nominee will be that Obama sends down to the Senate. It will have to be a moderate to get Senate approval. But, we have been surprised in the past how SC justices change during their tenure.

It will be a topic in tonight’s debate.

Already, Ted Cruz has tweeted that Obama should not be allowed to fill the vacancy on the court. Conn Carroll, communications director to Mike Lee, the Senate Judiciary Comittee Chairman has characterized the chance of Obama successfully nominating Scalia’s replacement as less than zero.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 13, 2016 6:54 PM
Comment #402522
taking a long time to fill a SC vacancy is not even close to what FDR attempted.

FDR wished to gain control over the judiciary by changing the total number of justices. Republicans are threatening to do the exact same thing. I don’t think it is terribly significant that one proposed to increase the number of justices and the other proposes to decrease the number of justices.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 13, 2016 6:58 PM
Comment #402523

The longest a justice took to receive approval was 107 days- roughly three months- for Clarence Thomas. Not allowing Obama to fill the vacancy would mean waiting until a new president is inaugurated in mid-January, 2017, nearly a year from now. Obama won the White House with over 50% of the vote. He should unquestionably make the nomination and see it approved, barring something turning up in the vetting process.

But I bet the GOP refuses. And that is actually a good outcome for liberals, because it instantly makes the Court more liberal, right now, and will keep it that way for the next year regardless of how the election goes.

If a Democrat wins the White House in November, the GOP Senate will probably accede to whatever Obama nomination comes forward, if not, there is a good chance the next president will put Obama on the Court, and I do not think Republicans could abide that thought.

Posted by: phx8 at February 13, 2016 7:08 PM
Comment #402524

LOL…wet dreams are rampant on the Left.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 13, 2016 7:13 PM
Comment #402525

How about this scenario to trump my Lefties dreams. Hillary loses to Sanders. Sanders is elected president. Sanders nominates Obama, and then Hillary for the next vacancy.

Wow…that just makes my toes curl and shivers run up my leg.

With such a president, Leftie controlled congress and SC court, we could abolish the Constitution and finally achieve the Socialist dream.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 13, 2016 7:18 PM
Comment #402526

A liberal SC will, in effect, abolish the Constitution. They insist it’s a “living document”. In Liberalspeak, it is whatever they say it is at the moment.


Posted by: Weary Willie at February 13, 2016 7:32 PM
Comment #402527

CNN is reporting that Obama will announce his nomination tomorrow. It is very remarkable that no one is waiting to mourn Scalia’s passing. Obviously, the limited time-frame provides impetus for the expedited nomination. It’ll probably be Sri Srinivasan as there is little time to find someone from outside the usual cast of candidates.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 13, 2016 7:37 PM
Comment #402528

He had it all ready to go, eh? Let’s not let a crisis go to waste.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 13, 2016 7:40 PM
Comment #402529

The body is literally not even cold and he’s already talking about replacing him. The callous prick.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 13, 2016 7:42 PM
Comment #402530

Or perhaps not? Sorry about forwarding information without verifying it first.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 13, 2016 9:51 PM
Comment #402531

OF course Obama has a nominee ready to go! Why wouldn’t he? It is called a plan. It is called being prepared.

Is it callous? I don’t see that at all. Scalia himself was one of the most extremely partisan judges on the court. I’m sure he would approve. He will be remembered for Bush v Gore and Citizens United. Not exactly the kind of stuff anyone wants to appear in the eulogy, but it is the truth.

Simple question: if the GOP Senate refuses to approve someone like Sri Srinivasan, who was approved just two years ago with a 97 - 0 vote, on the theory that the next president should make the nomination, then what is to stop the Democrats from doing exactly the same thing? If a Republican wins the White House, what is to stop Democratic Senators from waiting four years for yet another election? And what if more justices pass away in the next month or two?

This is the way our system works. Obama won in 2012. His nominee should receive a fair vote. I’m sure the GOP will not like losing conservative control of the SCOTUS, but remember, there will be more elections and more openings.

Posted by: phx8 at February 13, 2016 11:30 PM
Comment #402535

I have yet to see Democratics roll over for the other side the way Republicans do. Democratics have a way of beating opponents over the head until they either relent or resign. If Democratics don’t get their way they continue to badger until they do. Republicans don’t have that luxury.

I don’t expect much from what’s to come. I haven’t seen anything go my way in thirty years. Politicians who support my positions are left shattered in the wake of the relentless march to the left. It’s a snowball rolling downhill now.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 14, 2016 9:46 AM
Comment #402554

“This is the way our system works. Obama won in 2012. His nominee should receive a fair vote.”

I absolutely agree. Please advise what would constitute an “unfair” vote.

I do not object if the Senate does or does not consent to a presidential nominee for SC. Our Founders designed it this way and it’s good enough for me.

Should we not have a replacement justice by November, the electorate will certainly consider this when voting…as they should. Recent polling indicates that the electorate considers, by a wide margin, that the SC is too liberal already.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 14, 2016 3:18 PM
Comment #402558
I absolutely agree. Please advise what would constitute an “unfair” vote.

Currently, GOP senators are saying they won’t even hold hearings to probe the qualifications of Obama’s appointee, let alone hold a vote on him or her.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 14, 2016 4:08 PM
Comment #402559

Source please Warren.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 14, 2016 4:14 PM
Comment #402560

This morning on Meet the Press (emphasis mine):

Chuck Todd:

Let me ask you, does the United States Senate have an obligation to at least consider a nomination that President Obama puts forward? I understand that you guys don’t want it, and you would prefer to let the elected… but doesn’t the United States Senate have an obligation to at least go through the process and have an up or down vote?

Ted Cruz:

Not remotely.

Chuck Todd:

Okay, I understand that. But why not go through the process? Shouldn’t the United States Senate do its duty and go through the process? Reject it, Senator, but go through the process.

Ted Cruz:

By the way, the Senate’s duty is to advise and consent. You know what? The Senate is advising right now. We’re advising that a lame-duck president in an election year is not going to be able to tip the balance of the Supreme Court.

Now it’s Marco’s turn:

Chuck Todd:

Do presidential terms end after three years? That’s what I don’t understand, is why not go through the advice and consent? You don’t have to approve it. You can reject it. That’s what happened in ‘68. But why not go through this process?

Marco Rubio:

Because actually, it’s not just for the Supreme Court, even for appellate court, it’s been both parties have followed this precedent. There comes a point in the last year of the president, especially in their second term, where you stop nominating, or you stop the advice and consent process. You basically say, “At this point, with a few months left in your term, no accountability from the ballot box and the appointment you’re going to make, on a lifetime—”

Chuck Todd:

We’re 11 months—

Marco Rubio:

That’s the important thing here. These are—These are not laws that can be re—

Chuck Todd:

I understand that, but we—

Marco Rubio:

Yeah, right, but these are not laws that can be reversed. In essence, this is a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the country, at a time when the balance of the constitution and the court’s interpretation of it is at stake, we’re not moving forward on it. Mitch McConnell’s already made that very clear. I support it 100%.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 14, 2016 4:39 PM
Comment #402561

Thanks for providing the source Warren. Two senators, running for president, hardly represent a consensus. Their answers would be expected under these circumstances.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 14, 2016 5:29 PM
Comment #402562

It’s more than just Cruz & Rubio:

Yet calls to honor the tradition of high-court nominations were batted down almost immediately by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who indicated he has no plans to start up the confirmation process on his panel.

“This president, above all others, has made no bones about his goal to use the courts to circumvent Congress and push through his own agenda,” Grassley said. “It only makes sense that we defer to the American people who will elect a new president to select the next Supreme Court Justice.”

By using his power as chairman to block a vote in committee, Grassley can box out Reid or other Democrats from trying to call up a nomination on the Senate floor, as Reid threatened to do when Loretta Lynch was a nominee to be attorney general. And McConnell can stop Obama from recess appointments by scheduling pro forma sessions of the Senate.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/mitch-mcconnell-antonin-scalia-supreme-court-nomination-219248#ixzz40BdK9DXa

Without the support of these two men, confirmation hearings for Obama’s nominee are impossible.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 14, 2016 6:08 PM
Comment #402563

Thanks for the research Warren.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 14, 2016 6:41 PM
Comment #402564

According to todays Washington Examiner, in 2007, 19 months prior to G. W. Bush leaving office Chuck Schumer said “We should NOT confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances.” And the libs are complaining about republicans saying basically the same thing 11 months prior to Obama leaving office.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at February 14, 2016 7:49 PM
Comment #402565

Here’s a original context for KAP’s claim.

Reading the speech, I reach these conclusions:

1. Nowhere does Schumer indicate the Senate should decline to even consider any hypothetical Bush nominee. Instead, he focuses on the considerations he makes when he casts his own vote to either confirm or not confirm.

I am certain that Schumer would passionately defend a Republican’s senator’s right to vote against the confirmation of Obama’s appointee. What Schumer will not defend is obstruction of the magnitude discussed by many GOP senators. Namely, there is the specter that the Judicial committee will not even hold hearings to discuss Obama’s nominee. Never has Schumer suggested that is something the Senate should do.

2. Schumer never make reference to the fact that Bush is nearing the end of his term. Neither does he refer to George Bush as a lame duck, nor does he ever suggest that there is a particular point at the end of a President’s term after which it is inappropriate for the President to decide who shall fill a SCOTUS vacancy.

3. Instead, Schumer’s thesis is this: The confirmation process for Roberts and Alito was deeply flawed. The nominees testified that they would adhere to legal precdent. However, 2 years after their appointment, it was clear that this testimony was a farce. Neither Justice expressed any restraint when the opportunity for judicial activism. As a consequence, many liberal causes suffered set-backs.

Schumer believes that fealty to legal precedence is a very important to a Justice’s jurisprudence regardless of his or her ideology. In making this speech, Schumer concludes that he will no longer blindly accept the testimony of any future nominee for the high court. Rather, he now believes:

The burden of proof lies with the nominee to prove that he is something other than what the President chose him for.

The burden always lies with the nominee to show that he or she is within the mainstream. And that burden cannot be met, as we’ve seen, by mouthing pleasant platitudes about modesty and stability at a confirmation hearing.

First, because of the limited usefulness of the hearings, when in the future we are presented with a nominee with a sparse written record, a Senator might very well be justified in voting against that nominee on this basis alone.

One should not have to engage in conjecture about a nominee’s way of thinking and method of reasoning. This is not the lotto.

As we have seen, a stealth nominee with a sparse record has scarce incentive to provide meaningful answers to questions about judicial philosophy and Constitutional interpretation.

Second, for the rest of this President’s term and if there is another Republican elected with the same selection criteria let me say this:

We should reverse the presumption of confirmation. The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts; or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.

Given the track record of this President and the experience of obfuscation at the hearings, with respect to the Supreme Court, at least: I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee EXCEPT in extraordinary circumstances.

They must prove by actions—not words—that they are in the mainstream, rather than the Senate proving that they are not.

Obviously, Schumer has defined for us what he means by extraordinary circumstances. When a nominee is presented to the Senate by a Republican President and that nominee has a proven track record of applying restraint when provided the opportunity to overturn an established precedent, then that nominee deserves to be confirmed. According to Schumer, anyone who fails this test will not receive his confirmation vote.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 14, 2016 8:34 PM
Comment #402566

Whoops! I forgot the link: https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/text-of-senator-schumers-speech

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 14, 2016 8:34 PM
Comment #402568

Warped, That is NOT the same one that the Washington Examiner had today.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at February 14, 2016 8:53 PM
Comment #402569

Warped, It is the same one but at the end of the speech in the Examiners take Schumer says “We should Not confirm another idealague like Roberts and Alito” or words to that effect. Another w3ords not another conservative justice. So like the libs, conservative don’t want another liberal on the court.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at February 14, 2016 9:03 PM
Comment #402577

“”And if you are a wimp or a victim, let me emphasize. Tough to be you. If you want to change your outcomes change your behaviors.”“

C&J, I think most folks would like for the train to go straight down the track. We would like to experience good gov’t, honest discourse and civil debate in advocating change/reform.

But, you can’t grow roses in a cesspool. As I just posted in the middle column, I’m pretty much trashing to whole thing and I’m sure not alone in my thinking. Trump is some right in that ‘we don’t win anymore’, IMO. Not totally correct, the 1% have won h-u-g-e.

Not to belabour the issue; gov’t, media, corpocracy purposely lying to the folks. WMD’s in Iraq, The NAU, amnesty and border control, big pharmas pushing their pills, Benghazi, and so on - - -

At a lower level; poor mgmt at the IRS, SS, VA, etc.

There are good reasons to vocalize re a host of issues.

I do find it egregious that the dems build on divisiveness among groups, races, income, etc.

$20T of debt, $5T on Iraq/Afghan wars and what a mess, what a helluva mess - - -

42% receiving federal bennies while the 1% own 40%. Bernie wants more freebies, tax the rich, and raise the min wage. I do appreciate him advocating to help those who find it hard to help themselves but I don’t agree with his proposals.

Recognizing that the poor will always be with us. And, recall that teaching a man to fish will feed him every day. Not so in this day and age. Salmon aren’t reproducing in numbers we are used too, ain’t much fishing on the east coast. More things are dying than reproducing. Chesapeake bay bass now have male and female characteristics. Who would eat a catfish from the Miss. river? Not an issue as they are few catfish left in the Miss. due to snakeheads and carp from China/Asia.

Going to be different going forward but I don’t see any planning toward that end. To wit; the 1% are going to continue to monopolize/conglomerate up, they will continue to innovate and replace ever larger numbers of workers through robotics/technology. They will continue to push immigrants in as a way of keeping wages competitive with Asia/Europe, etc.

Far more than 42% of the folks are going to need help from somewhere.

I propose breaking up the monopolies/conglomerates to spread business, retain competition, and employ many more people.

I like TRumps idea of encouraging US businesses to stay in the US. Also, like his ideas on leveling some trade imbalance,

The fed should make it easy for folks to start up new high tech industries and more specifically in bio-med, robotics, high tech acquaculture and similar.

At the moment, I see nothing but pretty sad leadership from all corners. Trump is a bright light that could dim at any moment. But, that’s where we are at , IMO.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at February 15, 2016 12:06 AM
Post a comment