U.S. Politics - More of it

[Horza]

Just popping in quick to add the following Cracked article: 5 Ways to Spot a B.S. Political Story in Under 10 Seconds.

Yes I understand that Cracked is not a legitimate news source. However, this article is excellent, funny and often poignant.

Hope it is good for a Monday laugh for everyone out there.

ETA: Formatting the quote took 2 attempts

Every now and again when reading Cracked I have to remind myself where David Wong's ideological terrain was back in the early 00s. Guy's come a long way.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I don't expect that conservatives will suddenly decide that, say, Dodd-Frank is a great thing. However, I do hope they'll accept that the law is indeed the law and not try to repeal it via the confirmation process.

I'm curious -- to what is this referring?

[TrackerNeil]

I'm curious -- to what is this referring?

Senate Republicans refused to confirm any nominee to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau until Democrats and President Obama agree to change the law. This provoked the recess appointment of Richard Corday, a candidate Republicans had no difficulty supporting except that they were using the confirmation process as a lever to win a battle they lost in Congress in 2010.

I understand that the confirmation process is and has been used as a bargaining chip by the Senate in negotiating with the president, and under normal circumstances that doesn't bother me. However, those negotiations are typically along the lines of you-help-me-I'll help-you, not you-will-change-the-law-or-I-will-prevent-the-law-from-functioning. In my view that's dysfunctional and it's harming both the democratic process and the nation. I know you don't agree, and I'm not interested in debating Dodd-Frank, but reasonable political parties understand DF is the law and we just have to work with it. Dysfunctional political parties throw wrenches into the works because they didn't get their way.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Senate Republicans refused to confirm any nominee to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau until Democrats and President Obama agree to change the law. This provoked the recess appointment of Richard Corday, a candidate Republicans had no difficulty supporting except that they were using the confirmation process as a lever to win a battle they lost in Congress in 2010.

I understand that the confirmation process is and has been used as a bargaining chip by the Senate in negotiating with the president, and under normal circumstances that doesn't bother me. However, those negotiations are typically along the lines of you-help-me-I'll help-you, not you-will-change-the-law-or-I-will-prevent-the-law-from-functioning. In my view that's dysfunctional and it's harming both the democratic process and the nation. I know you don't agree, and I'm not interested in debating Dodd-Frank, but reasonable political parties understand DF is the law and we just have to work with it. Dysfunctional political parties throw wrenches into the works because they didn't get their way.

I see that as functionally no different than the Administration refusing to enforce laws on the books with which it doesn't agree (immigration laws), or refusing to defend in court valid laws that are being legally challenged (DOMA), which normally is what the Justice Department does.

if the Executive Branch sees fit to subvert laws that are already passed, I'm glad Congress is doing the same by refusing to confirm CFPB nominees. We don't like the law, so we'll stop it by not approving nominees. Good for them.

I'd also point out that the Administration has been extraordinarily up front about using every executive power it has to get around a Congress it sees as being unwilling to act. For example, they've got no problem using a fund that is supposed to be limited to demonstration projects to fund programs that clearly are anything but:

http://blogs.investo...ically-perilous

[TrackerNeil]

I see that as functionally no different than the Administration refusing to enforce laws on the books with which it doesn't agree (immigration laws), or refusing to defend in court valid laws that are being legally challenged (DOMA), which normally is what the Justice Department does.

Except, of course, that it is the job of the executive branch to enforce the laws, and that involves a certain amount of discretion about just how that should be done. The confirmation process was intended to allow Congress some say over who will enforce those laws, and was most certainly not intended to be used as a lever to make government bureaus unable to function until the minority party forces a change in the law itself. But I figured you'd back the GOP on this one, so whatever.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Except, of course, that it is the job of the executive branch to enforce the laws, and that involves a certain amount of discretion about just how that should be done.

As to the technicalities of how it is to be enforced, sure. But as to whether or not to enforce them at all? If the President can wipe out laws by refusing to enforce them, I see nothing wrong with Congress using its power of confirmation to wipe out laws with which it doesn't agree.

Your just think only your side is allowed to play hardball.

[TrackerNeil]

Your just think only your side is allowed to play hardball.

Please. Although it's disturbing that you're so all-fired upset about a sideways attempt to allow the federal government to recognize a state-sanctioned marriage. I know you think marriage equality is bad, blah, blah, but it's still disturbing.

But I wonder how you'd feel in this scenario: Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires, and Mitch McConnell tells Barack Obama that Senate Republicans will filibuster any replacement until the Democrats agree to pass Paul Ryan's budget in its entirety. Until then, the Court would operate with eight justices. Would that be OK with you?

[Guest Raidne]

Except, of course, that it is the job of the executive branch to enforce the laws, and that involves a certain amount of discretion about just how that should be done. The confirmation process was intended to allow Congress some say over who will enforce those laws, and was most certainly not intended to be used as a lever to make government bureaus unable to function until the minority party forces a change in the law itself. But I figured you'd back the GOP on this one, so whatever.

The administration has issued a blanket refusal to defend DOMA in the courts. I believe the argument is that it is a waste of resources. That argument doesn't really hold water for me - the only way it would be a waste of resources is if they decided it was unconstitutional, which isn't really their role, but the Court's. I hate DOMA as much as the next person, and believe it IS unconstitutional, but I can't see how it's not the administration's job to make the case that it's constitutional. I don't like case outcomes at my job all the time, but I don't get to just decide I don't like the relevant statutes and/or court precedent and just do what I want, even if that's following my conscience.

So, I think both parties are wrong here. The solution is supposed to be legislaitve. We get so fed up with everyone refusing to do their constitionally mandated jobs that we throw the jerks out and elect new jerks.

The Court can issue a a writ of mandamus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandamus) which basically orders officials to do their ministerial duties. I've never heard of mandamus being used on a member of the legislative body, but I guess you could argue that the Constitution requires an up or down vote on all nominees by the end of the session such that a writ of mandumus requiring that vote should be issued to the Speaker. Then if he didn't, he'd be arrested for contempt.

We should probably pass an amendment clearly requiring up or down votes on all nominees by the end of the session - it's a loophole that's been progressively exploited for a long time, but it's reached a fever pitch.

And did you just ask if making the Court 4-3-Kennedy would be okay with FLOW?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Please. Although it's disturbing that you're so all-fired upset about a sideways attempt to allow the federal government to recognize a state-sanctioned marriage. I know you think marriage equality is bad, blah, blah, but it's still disturbing.

That's not it at all. The point is that Obama has been very open about using any means possible to get his agenda past Congress, whether it takes executive orders, bogus classifications of spending as a "demonstration project", or any other method, as long as there is at least a technical argument for it being lawful. And whenever he does such things, people on the left applaud.

Now I don't really have any desire to argue the merits of any of the substantive issues, because there's never agreement on them anyway. But if you're going to make a process-oriented argument when the GOP does the same thing in Congress, then I'm going to point out the hypocrisy.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires, and Mitch McConnell tells Barack Obama that Senate Republicans will filibuster any replacement until the Democrats agree to pass Paul Ryan's budget in its entirety. Until then, the Court would operate with eight justices. Would that be OK with you?

As of right now, no. But then, the GOP isn't refusing to confirm nominees for positions unrelated to the CFPB. The GOP opposes the CFPB, disagrees with giving a bureaucrat that much power, so it won't appoint anyone to that position. I high-five them for this one, especially since Obama has demonstrated a willingness to use overly-compliant appointees to approve actions that are clearly not in keeping with the underlying legislation. As in the demonstration project slush fund being used to cover a Medicare cut that would hurt the President during the election.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

We should probably pass an amendment clearly requiring up or down votes on all nominees by the end of the session.

I'd be fine with that, actually. I'm not sure why people are so reluctant to amend the Constitution.. I'm even more puzzled in that the people who seem most opposed to amending the text of the Constitution seem to be people on the left who believe in the so-called "living constitution". Like it's okay for judges to read it expansively, but somehow horrible to actually amend the thing to have it say what we'd like it to say.

[TrackerNeil]

That's not it at all. The point is that Obama has been very open about using any means possible to get his agenda past Congress, whether it takes executive orders, bogus classifications of spending as a "demonstration project", or any other method, as long as there is at least a technical argument for it being lawful. And whenever he does such things, people on the left applaud.

If Congress could actually get something done, Obama wouldn't have opportunity to extend executive power in this way. I think you're better off blaming the filibuster than executive overreach.

[lokisnow]

I'd love an amendment that forced a more orderly and timely senate vote on appointments. I also think the amendment should thoroughly define the recess and establish a definition of a recess.

I think forcing a vote by the end of a session is only a baby step. I'd much rather a vote occur within 30 days.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Could it be possible that both parties are made up of self-centered, dishonest, and dishonorable scum bags? This "your side does bad thing (x) so my side does bad thing (y)" is horseshit. Admit that you're both cheerleading for your own version of this guy and then decide how that reflects on you.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

If Congress could actually get something done, Obama wouldn't have opportunity to extend executive power in this way. I think you're better off blaming the filibuster than executive overreach.

Eh? The GOP controls the House too, so he still couldn't get his legislation through. Which means we'd still get executive overreach in terms of DOMA, etc. Remember, if you're fine with what happened with DOMA, and what Obama has done with some administrative agencies, then a Republican President could refuse to have the GOP enforce civil rights laws, etc..

That being said, I'm fine with getting rid of the filibuster, but the Senate is perfectly free to get rid of it any time it chooses already.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Could it be possible that both parties are made up of self-centered, dishonest, and dishonorable scum bags? This "your side does bad thing (x) so my side does bad thing (y)" is horseshit. Admit that you're both cheerleading for your own version of this guy and then decide how that reflects on you.

Sure, but we're really talking process rather than substance anyway. Talking substance here is generally pretty futile.

[TerraPrime]

I high-five them for this one, especially since Obama has demonstrated a willingness to use overly-compliant appointees to approve actions that are clearly not in keeping with the underlying legislation.

Yes, obviously, as in many other areas, Obama is an innovator and an inventor, conjuring up heretofore unseen political maneuvers to dazzle his political foes, catching them off-guard with utterly foreign political concepts.

[Guest Raidne]

I'd be fine with that, actually. I'm not sure why people are so reluctant to amend the Constitution.. I'm even more puzzled in that the people who seem most opposed to amending the text of the Constitution seem to be people on the left who believe in the so-called "living constitution". Like it's okay for judges to read it expansively, but somehow horrible to actually amend the thing to have it say what we'd like it to say.

I'm pretty reluctant to amend the Constitution, but not over something like that. I would not put in a 30 requirement or something like that though - you never know what future circumstances will be and don't really want to write legislative specificity into the Constitution like that, IMO. End of the session is fine with me. Defining a session and a recess is probably a good idea also.

I think there would be bipartisan support on that one. It would probably actually nullify the use of the filibuster for those types of hearings also, since anything that could prevent an up or down vote on nominees would be incompatible with the amendment.

[TrackerNeil]

Remember, if you're fine with what happened with DOMA, and what Obama has done with some administrative agencies, then a Republican President could refuse to have the GOP enforce civil rights laws, etc..

If a Republican president chooses to ignore a law passed on bigotry and substantiated only by bigotry, he/she has my blessing.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I think there would be bipartisan support on that one. It would probably actually nullify the use of the filibuster for those types of hearings also, since anything that could prevent an up or down vote on nominees would be incompatible with the amendment.

But Raidne, to get the amendment passed other than in a constitutional convention, you'd need a 2/3rd vote by the Senate. And if you can get a 2/3 vote by the Senate to eliminate the filibuster for appointments, then you certainly should be able to get the 51 Seante votes necessary to do that change as a Senate rule change, because that's all you'd need. In which case, the amendment would be unnecesarry.

Anyway, the reason you'll never get that passed the Senate is abortion. Simple as that.

[Guest Raidne]

Yes, obviously, as in many other areas, Obama is an innovator and an inventor, conjuring up heretofore unseen political maneuvers to dazzle his political foes, catching them off-guard with utterly foreign political concepts.

A refusal by the Justice Department to defend a law before the Court is indeed very rare. Great article on it here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/weekinreview/27liptak.html

Note that it's not the same thing as not enforcing a law, and I'm sure we all realize that DOMA is still being enforced, distinguishing it from FLOW's complaint about immigration.

Given the state of the federal immigration courts, I can't see how you could possibly argue immigration isn't being enforced either - from what I hear they are the only administrative law judges more overworked than the ones who work in my office. The administration is doing absolutely everything it can with the money it has. It's an interesting problem - I posted a thread about this awhile back. The 9th Circuit actually held that VA is violating due process because of the delay in getting available health care and adjudicating benefits, essentially making the argument that we're taking so long to do anything under the applicable Veterans law that we're not enforcing it. The same thing is going on with immigration. But what is the executive supposed to do? We beg for more funding and show why we need it, in detail, every year, and they don't give it to us. We had an action plan for dealing with the increase and claims and injured Veterans, but nobody cared through years of budget fights. To me, saying the executive isn't enforcing a law when it doesn't have enough funding is just sticking your head in the sand and waiving some fingers around. You want more immigration enforcement? Allocate some more freaking money to it already.