U.S. Politics 21

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

AP,

So it's acceptable for people to ask elected officials who they think will murder the president?

No one is saying that. However, the Secret Service is saying, after investigating, they don't think the guy who asked the question is a real threat. I don't understand the hesitation on the part of any politician to say, "Ummmm... no." when someone suggests violence.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Remember Rep Chris Lee ® who resigned right after being caught soliciting sex, using his real name, on Cragslist?

Well, it turns out there was more to his suspiciously tame scandal.

It appears he wasn't just looking for sex. He was looking for transgendered sex: http://gawker.com/#!5769037/the-craigslist-congressman-and-the-crossdressing-prostitute

Now that's what a Republican Sex Scandal looks like!

So what does a Democratic sex scandal look like?

Running a gay prostitute ring out of your apartment?

12 counts of sexual asault on a sixteen year old?

Gay sex with an underage male page?

Drugging, assault, and rape?

Banging a 14 year old?

Take your pick. The difference seems to be that Republicans tend to get rid of their guys who do this shit. Democrats tend to reelect them.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17357

http://www.boycottliberalism.com/Scandals.htm

Of course, there's this website that claims to have added them all up. Pretty hilarious:

• Republicans have more scandals (34 to 27), but Democrats have bigger ones, based on our methodology (13 out of the top 20).

• Democrats tend to have more problems with harassment, staffers and underage girls; Republicans tend to have more problems with prostitutes, hypocrisy and underage boys.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-30/which-party-has-more-sex-scandals/

That shit's just too bizarre. What the HELL is wrong with those guys?

[Jon Sprunk]

That shit's just too bizarre. What the HELL is wrong with those guys?

It's what is wrong with us, the voters. Republicans will vote for anyone who pledges to cut taxes and wears a flag pin on their lapel. Democrats will vote for anyone who pledges to fight corporate greed and has an Ivy League diploma. Maybe we need to spend more time worrying about a candidate's character than his/her ideology.

[Altherion]

Take your pick. The difference seems to be that Republicans tend to get rid of their guys who do this shit. Democrats tend to reelect them.

I think this is because Republicans tend to appeal more to the "family values" crowd and to the seriously religious, both of which are less likely to tolerate such moral lapses than the average voter.

[awesome possum]

AP,

No one is saying that. However, the Secret Service is saying, after investigating, they don't think the guy who asked the question is a real threat. I don't understand the hesitation on the part of any politician to say, "Ummmm... no." when someone suggests violence.

FLoW is basically saying that by trying to change the subject from, "an elected official didn't immediately condemn someone suggesting the president be murdered, and even went on to explain why people should be angry and perhaps want to murder the president" to "well the Secret Service doesn't think that guy is going to try to kill the president."

No shit, he's not. He's some old kooky asshole. That's not the point. The point is, is this acceptable dialogue at town hall meetings? If it's not, then any rational person should immediately condemn the talk out of shock and outrage. Not chuckle and explain that yes, people should be angry at the president.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

AP,

No one is saying that. However, the Secret Service is saying, after investigating, they don't think the guy who asked the question is a real threat. I don't understand the hesitation on the part of any politician to say, "Ummmm... no." when someone suggests violence.

Look, if you read the story it was some "elderly" guy asking the question, and it shocked the shit out of the rep. He issued a statement condemning it, apologised for not condemning it at the time but saying he was stunned (and likely didn't want to embarass the old geezer in front of a crowd that probably also took the guy's age into account and didn't take it seriously), but that his office contacted the FBI anyway.

Anyone who chooses to make a big deal out of that is just reaching big-time.

[Jon Sprunk]

Anyone who chooses to make a big deal out of that is just reaching big-time.

Indeed. Broun sounds like a lowlife turd, but the govt is filled with turds at every level (and also with some decent people who actually want to serve the public good). In the big scheme, this isn't surprising, as sad as that may be.

Just as an aside though, FLoW, two eyewitnesses state that Broun laughed when the question was asked. Doesn't seem like he was shocked by it. And he waited to put out his "statement" until after the story went national. So, let's not pretend he's just a good old boy who got sideswiped by a kook. By accounts, Broun fits right in with the crazies.

[TrackerNeil]

Take your pick. The difference seems to be that Republicans tend to get rid of their guys who do this shit. Democrats tend to reelect them.

Except of course for David Vitter, who unlike Eliot Spitzer refused to resign his office. Oh, right...Vitter apologized. And found God.

Edited to add: Honestly, I think these politicians are sometimes too quick to resign after this kind of scandal. I'm not sure Mr. I-Want-Trannies would have necessarily lost his reelection bid, and I feel much the same about even Larry Craig. Sure, Craig would have endured alot of embarrassment on the campaign trail, but would he really have lost? In Idaho? Hell, Ted Stevens very nearly won his own reelection, and that was after an actual conviction.

[Swordfish]

FLoW is basically saying that by trying to change the subject from, "an elected official didn't immediately condemn someone suggesting the president be murdered, and even went on to explain why people should be angry and perhaps want to murder the president" to "well the Secret Service doesn't think that guy is going to try to kill the president."

No shit, he's not. He's some old kooky asshole. That's not the point. The point is, is this acceptable dialogue at town hall meetings? If it's not, then any rational person should immediately condemn the talk out of shock and outrage. Not chuckle and explain that yes, people should be angry at the president.

Tempest, meet teapot.

Teapot, this is tempest.

[awesome possum]

Anyone who chooses to make a big deal out of that is just reaching big-time.

So what you're saying is that in your book it's okay to talk about murdering the president.

Tempest, meet teapot. Teapot, this is tempest.

[TerraPrime]

Re: FLoW

Take your pick. The difference seems to be that Republicans tend to get rid of their guys who do this shit. Democrats tend to reelect them.

You're missing the fun here. The GOP marches under the banner of moral majority much more so than the Democrats do. The religious right wing delights in imposing policies based on their brand of morality onto the rest of the country, stemming from abortion to gay marriage to the right to die. It is, therefore, much more satisfying to mock the sexual impropriety of the GOP. On a personal note, I'm all for people wanting to have sex with transexxuals. What harm he does to his marriage is his own cross to bear and concerns me little. But on a cultural scale, I take delight in seeing yet one more GOP taken down for private sexual behavior that only the moral-majority style of religious folks would find objectionable.

Re: awesome possum

So what you're saying is that in your book it's okay to talk about murdering the president.

I don't think that's what people are saying. I think they're saying that they find it to be inconsequential and insignificant in this context. I don't think they're saying that all cases of talking about murdering the POTUS is okay.

In this case, I actually agree with them. Town hall meetings of this sort are probably peppered with this sort of talk, mingled with racist and anti-muslim talking points. This is, after all, the core constituents of the GOP. If we take every possibly menacing comment from these people seriously, our secret service will be overwhelmed. I mean, I understand your outrage, but it's really not worth the effort in pursuing this. It makes as much sense as getting upset over hearing racist comments at anti-illegal immigrant rallies in AZ.

[Zap Rowsdower]

Justice department instructed to stop defending DOMA.

Explain this to an ignorant furriner - actual good thing or meaningless gesture?

Min,

Well, it means that those who are challenging DOMA in the Courts will have a much easier time as they will not be dealing with briefs from the Justice Department defending the law.

However, it sets up an interesting precedent. Suppose Obama loses in 2012. Then the ACA is up before the Supreme's under the new (hypothetical) Romney Justice Department. Could then President Romney, without consequence, instruct his Justice Department to just ignore the challenges to the ACA before the Supremes and lower Federal Courts?

I'd like to see DOMA go the way of the dodo. I think is violates the full faith and credit clause quite blatently. However, does the President of the U.S. have the authority to decide which properly passed laws they will enforce and defend or is that a ministerial duty that the President must exercise without personal preference? I'm not sure what the answer is to that question.

I think you need not concern yourself that this is some sort of presidential powergrab or get your hopes up that this is anything other a clever ruse to win support from the left while minimizing the backlash on all sides.

If you read the actual text of AG Holder's letter you'll see that the Justice Department's decision was hardly sweeping and that Holder has a way to go back and enforce DOMA:

In light of the foregoing, I will instruct the Department’s lawyers to immediately inform the district courts in Windsor and Pedersen of the Executive Branch’s view that heightened scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review and that, consistent with that standard, Section 3 of DOMA may not be constitutionally applied to same-sex couples whose marriages are legally recognized under state law. If asked by the district courts in the Second Circuit for the position of the United States in the event those courts determine that the applicable standard is rational basis, the Department will state that, consistent with the position it has taken in prior cases, a reasonable argument for Section 3’s constitutionality may be proffered under that permissive standard. Our attorneys will also notify the courts of our interest in providing Congress a full and fair opportunity to participate in the litigation in those cases. We will remain parties to the case and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation.

In less formal language:

In other words, the actual position of the DOJ ... is that if the courts agree with the government that heightened scrutiny is the appropriate standard, then the plaintiffs should prevail because section 3 of DOMA does not satisfy the heightened scrutiny test.

Got that? Holder thinks section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional under the strict scrutiny test but NOT under the rational basis test.

What is strict scrutiny and rational basis?

These are terms for the level of review the courts will subject to legislation whose constitutionality is in question.

Strict scrutiny review can be applied when laws have an impact on a "suspect class" of people. Who is a suspect class? In short, people who have been discriminated against in the past. Think in terms of race, national origin, and religion.

For example, if a law were to be passed that said "No black people can drink at fountains reserved for white people."

Well, the problem with such a law is that it seems that it horribly discriminates against black people.

So in that case the judge says "Hold it! I'm going to apply strict scrutiny review to this law!" And strict scrutiny really is pretty strict. I don't want to go into the details but suffice it to say that it really nails laws similar to the example I posted above.

But not everyone belongs to a suspect class of people. In all likelihood the law will be evaluated using the rational basis test. Is this law rationally related to a legitimate government end/concern? On the surface, this sound not so bad bad. But this is a much broader stretch of territory than one might first imagine.

I think rational basis was invented by the courts when judges realized they didn't want to consign themselves to the same fate as Sisyphus by closely reviewing every dumbass decision our law makers make.

So the courts will often wave their hands and say the law is constitutional based upon rational basis review. I don't want to give you the impression that rational basis is a total green light, but it is close too it. Take this recent Onion article for example:

WASHINGTON—Reports continue to pour in from around the nation today of helpless Americans being forcibly taken from their marital unions after President Obama dropped the Defense of Marriage Act earlier this week, leaving the institution completely vulnerable to roving bands of homosexuals. "It was just awful—they smashed through our living room window, one of them said 'I've had my eye on you, Roger,' and then they dragged my husband off kicking and screaming," said Cleveland-area homemaker Rita Ellington, one of the latest victims whose defenseless marriage was overrun by the hordes of battle-ready gays that had been clambering at the gates of matrimony since the DOMA went into effect in 1996. "Oh dear God, why did they remove the protection provided by this vital piece of legislation? My children! What will I tell my children?" A video communique was sent to the media late yesterday from what appears to be the as-yet unidentified leader of the gay marauders, who, adorned in terrifying warpaint, announced "Richard Dickson of Ames, Iowa. We're coming for you next. Put on something nice.

If law makers articulated the fear that those events could happen without DOMA, this might actually pass the rational basis test.

Example:

Joe Lawmaker: I am passing DOMA because without it straight men and women will be abducted my ravening hordes of homosexuals.

Joe Judge: Ho hum, so you say. Homosexuals aren't a suspect class so I'll guess I'll toss strict scrutiny aside and apply the dread rational basis test! *the judge takes out a magnify glass and proceeds to inspect the law for several heartbeats.*

Joe Judge: I guess your right- the law is rationally related to a legitimate government end! Run along you little scamp.

Joe Lawmaker: Huzzah!

As I mentioned before, currently, suspect class applies to race, religion, and national origins. Obama and Holder's decision not to support DOMA rests on whether homosexuals will be regarded as a suspect class when the issue comes before the Supreme Court.

You've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?

The Supreme Court of the United States is not in the habit of adding new suspect classes to the ones that already exist:

In my first-year constitutional law course, we do an exercise involving footnote 4 of Carolene Products. Tracking the language of that footnote, I ask my students to identify the "discrete and insular minorities" against whom there is "prejudice" that "curtails the operation of . . . political processes" that "ordinarily . . . protect minorities" so that a "more searching judicial inquiry" is warranted when the government draws classifications involving members of those minority groups. The discrete and insular minorities my students identify vary from year to year but we always end up with a long list (and a lively debate about which groups should receive special protection from the courts).

My students are often surprised that after we work our way through the equal protection cases, the Supreme Court's own list of suspect classes is very short. Students sometimes ask if we just didn't cover a whole set of cases. No, I tell them, this is all there is. Students also suggest the Court is simply slower in identifying all of the groups who merit special judicial protection and there are surely more cases to come. My response is that there is in fact very little likelihood that the Court will hold that a classification involving any additional group triggers a heightened form of scrutiny.

Accordingly, I teach my students that in arguing cases (or, of more immediate concern to them, answering an exam question), they are unlikely to prevail if they argue for recognition of a new suspect class in accordance with footnote 4's framework.

The same blog post goes on to state:

By putting its hope in heightened scrutiny, the Obama administration has aimed for the stars...

and seems to credit Obama and his administration with a deal of idealism and decency that I think it manifestly lacks.

This is the same administration and justice department that has allowed the criminal statue of limitations to run out on the banksters, allowing them to pay millions in fees after they stole or destroyed trillions of dollars and crashed the economy. Instead of busting out the handcuffs and throwing the banksters in jail, the government "punishes" them by forcing their shareholders to foot the bill for the crimes they committed.

When this administration has been called upon to do the right thing, to make the choice that will lessen injustice and excise the tumors rotting the Republic within, Obama and his people have always chosen the politically expedient path, or the path that personally enriches them.

So, I'm skeptical that in this ONE INSTANCE, Obama and Holder are casting caution to the wind and charging full tilt, not to rest until justice is done! Speaking in the practical sense, those organizations most concerned with the rights of homosexuals probably donated far less to his campaign than the health care industry and the Wall Street lobby. I'm sure they'll receive a corresponding return on their investment.

I suppose it is possible the Supreme Court will expand the suspect class to include homosexuals. But to me, the most likely outcome will be that the Supreme Court will decline to expand the definition and instead use the rational basis test.

And remember- Holder has ALREADY conceded in his letter that DOMA is constitutional under the rational basis test.

That leaves the Obama administration in a very happy position. First of all, he's placated certain elements of his base. And if the Supreme Court failed to accept Holder's legal arguments, that means the Justice Department will once against enforce DOMA, placating the supporters of the DOMA legislation. The issue will have hopefully died down by election time, leaving him with stronger support from the left and no additional opposition from the right.

He'll probably make some speech to the following effect:

My fellow Americans I have tried to end the most egregious and unfair elements of DOMA, but much to my sorrow all of my efforts have been stymied by the Supreme Court....

Christ, the speech practically writes itself. Just throw in a little more Hope! and Change! and liberal rubes will be quoting it for years to come.

The only way the plan would backfire and hurt Obama would be if the SC actually bought Holder's argument.

[TrackerNeil]

You're missing the fun here. The GOP marches under the banner of moral majority much more so than the Democrats do. The religious right wing delights in imposing policies based on their brand of morality onto the rest of the country, stemming from abortion to gay marriage to the right to die. It is, therefore, much more satisfying to mock the sexual impropriety of the GOP. On a personal note, I'm all for people wanting to have sex with transexxuals. What harm he does to his marriage is his own cross to bear and concerns me little. But on a cultural scale, I take delight in seeing yet one more GOP taken down for private sexual behavior that only the moral-majority style of religious folks would find objectionable.

On this topic, it used to be the hypocrisy that got on my nerves, but courtesy of PDC I no longer care if this or that elected official is a hypocrite. I'm more concerned with what such behavior says about that official's character. Take Larry Craig, who was voting against gay rights all the while acting as a gay man in private. That kind of dissonance indicates either a deeply unstable character or a thoroughly cruel one. Neither is something I want in a holder of public office.

[Elrick]

It's what is wrong with us, the voters. Republicans will vote for anyone who pledges to cut taxes and wears a flag pin on their lapel. Democrats will vote for anyone who pledges to fight corporate greed and has an Ivy League diploma. Maybe we need to spend more time worrying about a candidate's character than his/her ideology.

Eh? Frankly who cares what who the guy/gal bangs. What sort of job he/she is going to do.

That leaves the Obama administration in a very happy position. First of all, he's placated certain elements of his base. And if the Supreme Court failed to accept Holder's legal arguments, that means the Justice Department will once against enforce DOMA, placating the supporters of the DOMA legislation. The issue will have hopefully died down by election time, leaving him with stronger support from the left and no additional opposition from the right.

He'll probably make some speech to the following effect:

Christ, the speech practically writes itself. Just throw in a little more Hope! and Change! and liberal rubes will be quoting it for years to come.

The only way the plan would backfire and hurt Obama would be if the SC actually bought Holder's argument.

Cynical as ever. As for your avatar impeach Obama? Give me a break.

[lokisnow]

Let's try a thought experiment. in 2004, Senate candidate Barack Obama is at a town hall rally for Kerry answering questions. Someone from the back shouts out, "Who's gonna shoot Bush and end this damn war?" The hall laughs appreciatively and Obama chuckles along, his response begins, "Well, I think we can all understand why folks are angry with the president, but do you really want Cheney in charge?" More laughter. "There's a lot of things wrong with our president and wrong with Washington. The war is just one of hundreds of reasons from the last four years folks are just completely fed up with Republicans. Comments like that are why we need to get out and vote, because ballots are better than bullets, if enough of us get out there voting in November--and we know there are MORE than enough of us--then change we can believe in will come to Washington!"

Would that be seen as acceptable to the right wing of this country? would they have gone ballistic?

Would this sort of thing have been a million times worse than Reverend Wright to Obama's 2008 campaign?

Would FLOW be bringing Obama's chuckle and "understanding and tacit endorsement of assassination level rage" up every two or three days as proof that Obama is unfit for office had Obama still been miraculously elected?

Would Fox News have played this piece more than 30 times a day from March to November?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

lockesnow,

Here are a few photos of banners from Bush Era protests. They didn't get much publicity.

http://www.binscorner.com/pages/d/death-threats-against-bush-at-protests-i.html

If they had I imagine there would have been something of an outcry. I do remember talk radio pundits getting all hot and bothered about a play that speculated on how the world would be better if Bush were assainated. None of this stuff makes threats against the Presidents life okay or that people in public office shouldn't immediately shut down people who make such threats. But it does suggest to me that they aren't that uncommon and that both sides do this.

[Ormond]

Scot, Lockesnow's point was about what would have happened in a parallell situation if a someone had asked Obama a similar question about Bush at a political rally.

That isn't 100% parallell because a presidential candidate isn't quite the same as a congressional candidate. But those situations are much more alike than they are like having an offensive sign at an anti-war rally or someone putting on a play somewhere.

Having a politician directly asked a question IS very different in terms of judging any responses he or she makes (or does not make.) I don't expect politicians to go searching out rally signs or obscure dramatic performances to criticize. I do expect them to have a better response to a direct question they themselves get than this guy in Georgia did.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ormond,

I'm not defending the Rep.'s failure to condemn the threat. I'm attempting to show this was going on, not infrequently with Bush, and people weren't raising that much of a stink. Here's a comment from Sen. John Kerry in 2006 on Bill Maher's show, not nearly so blatent but still, not cool that was reacted to with laughter:

http://hotair.com/ar...t-killing-bush/

How about 1976 Nobel Peace prize winner Betty Williams expressing her desire to kill President Bush:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/nobel-peace-prize-winner-wants-to-kill-president-bush

None of these are okay, but the reactions to tend to fall along party lines.

[Ormond]

Ormond,

I'm not defending the Rep.'s failure to condemn the threat. I'm attempting to show this was going on, not infrequently with Bush, and people weren't raising that much of a stink. Here's a comment from Sen. John Kerry in 2006 on Bill Maher's show, not nearly so blatent but still, not cool that was reacted to with laughter:

http://hotair.com/ar...t-killing-bush/

How about 1976 Nobel Peace prize winner Betty Williams expressing her desire to kill President Bush:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/nobel-peace-prize-winner-wants-to-kill-president-bush

None of these are okay, but the reactions to tend to fall along party lines.

Kerry certainly should have said that.

But I still don't think you are getting my point. Bill Maher and his audience,

and whoever the audience was for an Northern Irish woman giving a speech in Australia, for gosh sakes, are not the same as a US Representative confronted by a questioner at an official event in Georgia.

Kerry was even worse than the Georgia congressman because he brought it up. But Betty Williams in Australia has absolutely no relevance to this argument.

[awesome possum]

lockesnow,

Here are a few photos of banners from Bush Era protests. They didn't get much publicity.

http://www.binscorner.com/pages/d/death-threats-against-bush-at-protests-i.html

If they had I imagine there would have been something of an outcry. I do remember talk radio pundits getting all hot and bothered about a play that speculated on how the world would be better if Bush were assainated. None of this stuff makes threats against the Presidents life okay or that people in public office shouldn't immediately shut down people who make such threats. But it does suggest to me that they aren't that uncommon and that both sides do this.

Classic.

"Well I don't think it's alright, but the other side did something vaguely similar once upon a time. So there."