2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

now Walker.

With 5 SCOTUS justices wholly owned subsidiaries of Koch Enterprises, he probably was not aware there were any laws left he could break.

 

[geezer]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

With 5 SCOTUS justices wholly owned subsidiaries of Koch Enterprises, he probably was not aware there were any laws left he could break.

It's the KOCH BROTHERS! I so want to be one of those guys and run the whole world from my private island. Has anyone ever actually seen one or are they like the boogyman?

 

[joecct]

It's the KOCH BROTHERS! I so want to be one of those guys and run the whole world from my private island. Has anyone ever actually seen one or are they like the boogyman?

Prince Harry of Vegas has pictures of them in his bedroom. He has Soros and the Steyer brothers on his nightstand (and rolodex).

 

[walrus]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

It's the KOCH BROTHERS! I so want to be one of those guys and run the whole world from my private island. Has anyone ever actually seen one or are they like the boogyman?

I hear there names mentioned in discussions so much it must be true

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

It's the KOCH BROTHERS! I so want to be one of those guys and run the whole world from my private island. Has anyone ever actually seen one or are they like the boogyman?

It's only ok when liberals like George Soros throw piles of money around. Heaven forbid that someone with conservative perspectives might do the same! Maybe Obama can issue yet another executive order, this one banning the Koch Brothers from the planet or something. It's not like he hasn't issued executive orders on pretty much everything else under the sun.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

It's only ok when liberals like George Soros throw piles of money around. Heaven forbid that someone with conservative perspectives might do the same! Maybe Obama can issue yet another executive order, this one banning the Koch Brothers from the planet or something. It's not like he hasn't issued executive orders on pretty much everything else under the sun.

The problem with that argument is I also support banning George Soros from bribing legislators and buying elections. Spending money is not a protected speech act, it's corruption. If this needs to be made explicit by Amendment then so be it, though all we need is non-partisan justices to undo the radical judicial activism of Citizens and McCutcheon. Amendment would be better as a bulwark against future attempts to destroy democracy.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

It's only ok when liberals like George Soros throw piles of money around. Heaven forbid that someone with conservative perspectives might do the same! Maybe Obama can issue yet another executive order, this one banning the Koch Brothers from the planet or something. It's not like he hasn't issued executive orders on pretty much everything else under the sun.

Soros is just as much of a scum bag as the Koch's. Let's not forget which party backed and cheered the Citizen's United Supreme Court decision, however.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

It's not like he hasn't issued executive orders on pretty much everything else under the sun.

Another thing I oppose; I don't understand why executive orders aren't at the very least subject to judicial review. Otherwise they clearly violate separation of powers. And if you hated Obama doing it I'm sure you loathed Dubya and Reagan.

The only way to evaluate these things is to remove the letter after the president's name. Do you support practice x by President Y if you have no idea what President Y's affiliation is?

 

[joecct]

Another thing I oppose; I don't understand why executive orders aren't at the very least subject to judicial review. Otherwise they clearly violate separation of powers. And if you hated Obama doing it I'm sure you loathed Dubya and Reagan.

The only way to evaluate these things is to remove the letter after the president's name. Do you support practice x by President Y if you have no idea what President Y's affiliation is?

It's been a gradual escalation over time. Somebody is going to (has/had) break the camel's back. When the public gets upset, then there will be change. Right now the collective public is not outraged.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Soros is just as much of a scum bag as the Koch's. Let's not forget which party backed and cheered the Citizen's United Supreme Court decision, however.

Scooby, what started the Citizens United court case, can you tell me?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Soros is just as much of a scum bag as the Koch's. Let's not forget which party backed and cheered the Citizen's United Supreme Court decision, however.

I'm not a fan of anyone, whether Soros or the Koch Brothers, having a really big influence on things. I'm just tired of the Koch Brothers being dragged across the coals constantly, while almost no one every says a word about Soros, who was at this long before I ever heard of the Koch Brothers. I've watched Soros pour millions into ballot propositions here in Arizona, yet nary a word is said. I appreciate you saying you don't like either. I wish the mainstream media and others would have such illimunation.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Another thing I oppose; I don't understand why executive orders aren't at the very least subject to judicial review. Otherwise they clearly violate separation of powers. And if you hated Obama doing it I'm sure you loathed Dubya and Reagan.

The only way to evaluate these things is to remove the letter after the president's name. Do you support practice x by President Y if you have no idea what President Y's affiliation is?

I've never been a fan of the use of executive orders to make any sort of major policy decision, whether done by a Dem or Rep president. I don't recall hearing nearly as much about Bush or Reagan using them, especially for big policy changes. For Obama, he's doing it at a pretty regular clip and seems to be picking up speed. He's basically said that he'll do as much through executive orders as he can get away with.

To me such use of executive orders is one of the gravest threats to the balance of powers in a very long time.

 

[Priceless]

It's been a gradual escalation over time. Somebody is going to (has/had) break the camel's back. When the public gets upset, then there will be change. Right now the collective public is not outraged.

So when the next Tory is in the White House I expect these same people to be apoplectic. Right?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Scooby, what started the Citizens United court case, can you tell me?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/james-bopp-citizens-united

IN JANUARY 2008, James Bopp got laughed out of court—literally. The white-haired lawyer from Terre Haute, Indiana, was appearing before a federal three-judge panel in Washington, DC, to argue that his client, a small conservative nonprofit named Citizens United, should be able to air Hillary: The Movie on on-demand TV during the Democratic presidential primaries. Citizens United had produced the film to show that Hillary Clinton was a "European socialist" and ruthless political schemer—a cross between Machiavelli and Lady Macbeth who "looks good in a pantsuit," as Ann Coulter put it in the movie. Also featured was Kathleen Willey, who accused Bill Clinton of hugging and kissing her in the White House—and who suggested in the film that Clinton had helped hatch a plot to assassinate her cat.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) told Citizens United that it couldn't air or advertise the film during primary season, because it amounted to a 90-minute campaign ad that didn't identify who'd paid for it. In court, Bopp argued that the movie wasn't so different from what you'd see on 60 Minutes, and its creators deserved First Amendment protections.

No one was laughing two years later, when the Supreme Court reversed Lamberth's ruling and adopted many of Bopp's arguments—a decision that wiped out 100 years of precedent in campaign-finance law.

100 Years of Election Law wiped out by Hillary Fear Mongers.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

I've never been a fan of the use of executive orders to make any sort of major policy decision, whether done by a Dem or Rep president. I don't recall hearing nearly as much about Bush or Reagan using them, especially for big policy changes. For Obama, he's doing it at a pretty regular clip and seems to be picking up speed. He's basically said that he'll do as much through executive orders as he can get away with.

To me such use of executive orders is one of the gravest threats to the balance of powers in a very long time.

The line item veto would have been worse, but signing statements are really bad, and executive orders are bad if they make substantive changes to policy (as a quotidian procedural measure they're probably necessary to, I dunno, change the water in the Federal Reserve fish tanks or something).

Obama has had the Cholicky Babies in Congress to deal with, but I still do not support his way of doing things. The right way forward, alongside getting money out of politics, is to end anonymous holds, end blue slips, end the fillibuster, and end the supermajority requirements. But none of those procedural reforms will matter if people don't wise up and stop rewarding the foot-stomping, breath-holding types with re-election.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

So when the next Tory is in the White House I expect these same people to be apoplectic. Right?

How about an Amendment that sunsets all this crap 20 years from the day it goes into effect? That should take incumbency bias out -- the equivalent of the classic "how to divide a cake equitably."

 

[St. Clown]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/james-bopp-citizens-united




100 Years of Election Law wiped out by Hillary Fear Mongers.

The reason the Hillary movie was created in the first place was in response to that same group's earlier attempt to apply the same election laws to advertisements for Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, essentially saying that it was Moore's political attack on Bush in the run up to the 2004 election.(The film was highly critical of Bush's handling of things surrounding the events of and following 9/11.) They argued that the FEC applied Secion 203 of the McCain-Feingold act unfairly when it allowed Farhenheit 9/11 and would not allow ads for their production, Hillary: The Movie, which they made in response to how the FEC ruled on Moore's movie. Thus led the nation on a path to the Supreme Court case.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

The line item veto would have been worse, but signing statements are really bad, and executive orders are bad if they make substantive changes to policy (as a quotidian procedural measure they're probably necessary to, I dunno, change the water in the Federal Reserve fish tanks or something).

Obama has had the Cholicky Babies in Congress to deal with, but I still do not support his way of doing things. The right way forward, alongside getting money out of politics, is to end anonymous holds, end blue slips, end the fillibuster, and end the supermajority requirements. But none of those procedural reforms will matter if people don't wise up and stop rewarding the foot-stomping, breath-holding types with re-election.

Yah, I used to like the line-item veto, but it seems there's too many ways to play games with it. I recall reading stories where people creatively line-itemed out parts of sentences, etc. to create a result totally unrelated to what was in the bill initially.

Agreed that with the current batch in Congress (and the Presidency), reforms mean little, as there'll always be loopholes found/created and people who abuse the system aren't likely to support reforming the system so they can't abuse it as easily.

I guess it was inevitable that executive orders would be abused, like other parts of the process are, as politicians focus more and more on the end result, regardless of what they have to do to get there.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

The reason the Hillary movie was created in the first place was in response to that same group's earlier attempt to apply the same election laws to advertisements for Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, essentially saying that it was Moore's political attack on Bush in the run up to the 2004 election.(The film was highly critical of Bush's handling of things surrounding the events of and following 9/11.) They argued that the FEC applied Secion 203 of the McCain-Feingold act unfairly when it allowed Farhenheit 9/11 and would not allow ads for their production, Hillary: The Movie, which they made in response to how the FEC ruled on Moore's movie. Thus led the nation on a path to the Supreme Court case.

LOL

So, you're saying it's Moore's fault? That's laughable. Why didn't they just pick a subject matter negative to Hillary then and do a documentary on it instead of putting her name on it? They would've gotten away with it and it wouldn't have caused the BS firestorm it did of corporate personhood.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

LOL

So, you're saying it's Moore's fault? That's laughable. Why didn't they just pick a subject matter negative to Hillary then and do a documentary on it instead of putting her name on it? They would've gotten away with it and it wouldn't have caused the BS firestorm it did of corporate personhood.

No, I would not say it's Moore's fault. I would say that it's the FEC's fault for allowing something as simple as a title to sway their judgment, for sending the signal to the American people that so long as you're clever in how you title a film, they'll allow you to skirt the law on a technicality.