What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

At this point can we all agree that Wisconsin can't be trusted to govern itself and they should outsource their government to, I dunno, Manitoba?
 
Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

A preview of what might be considered essential vs non-essential in the event of a shutdown.

Since 1980, every government agency has been required to have a plan in the case of a shutdown, defining essential employees and operations. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) mandated this in a memo that continues to be updated.

These plans are not available to the public, which is why there is so much speculation in advance of the expected fallout. We simply don't know what's considered essential these days. The last time the government shut down was in 1995; so much has changed with respect to the government's business and how it's conducted since then. In 1995, these services were not deemed essential by their parent agencies, and therefore went untended:

Health, welfare and financial services for Veterans
Passport and visa application processing
National parks, museums and monument
Work on bankruptcy cases
Recruitment and testing of federal law-enforcement officials
Disease surveillance and information distribution
Toxic waste clean-up

It's a good bet that most things deemed unessential in 1995 are still unessential in 2011. There is speculation that this time around, however, the SEC may have to put off audits and interviews, and that the decision of which cybersecurity personnel to keep on would not only be especially delicate, but could also open the door to attacks from hackers who are more numerous and better organized than they were 15 years ago.

Providing for the national security, including the conduct of foreign relations essential to the national security or the safety of life and property.
Benefit payments and the performance of certain contract obligations
Medical care of inpatients and emergency outpatient care
Conducting activities to ensure continued public health and safety, including safe use of food, drugs and hazardous materials
Air traffic control and other transportation safety functions
Border and coastal protection and surveillance
Protection of federal lands, buildings, waterways, equipment and other property owned by the United States
Care of prisoners and other persons in the custody of the United States
Law enforcement and criminal investigations
Emergency and disaster assistance
Activities that ensure production of power and maintenance of the power distribution system
Activities essential to the preservation of the essential elements of the money and banking system of the United States, including borrowing and
tax collection activities of the Treasury
Activities necessary to maintain protection of research property.

Employees who get rated "essential" are still allowed to report to work, whereas everyone else is barred from performing their duties, even if they offer to do so for free. Essential personnel get paid, but only retroactively, once funding for their particular agency has been restored.

During the last major shutdowns in the final days of 1995 and early 1996, the government closed 368 National Park Service sites, along with national museums and monuments.

In addition, 200,000 passport applications went unprocessed and toxic waste cleanup work at 609 sites stopped. The National Institutes of Health stopped accepting new clinical research patients and services for veterans, including health care, were slowed.

Which services will keep running regardless? Agencies are allowed to perform any operations necessary for the safety of human life and protection of property.

The government will keep essential services, such as air traffic control and the national security apparatus in full operating mode.

Federal workers who provide medical care on the job would be kept on, as would employees who handle hazardous waste, inspect food, patrol the borders, and protect federal property, guard inmates or work in power distribution.

Workers who protect essential elements of the money and banking system will also continue.

Will Social Security benefits be mailed? During the last major shutdown, the Social Security Administration mailed checks throughout the crisis, and a close reading of established law makes clear the agency has the legal authority to do so again.

Will troops overseas get the resources they need? Yes. While some Pentagon activities would stop, it would continue many other operations necessary for the safety of human life and protection of property.

However -- the Department of Defense says that if the government shuts down for an extended period, troops might not be paid on time.
 
Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

100% reporting, Kloppenburg 740,090 and Prosser 739,886. Gap is only 204 out of 1,479,976 votes.
 
Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Regardless of the outcome in Wisconsin, partisan elections for judges is the worst possible way to select them. In Texas, powerful, wealthy lawyers can manipulate the system to their benefit. Billionaire (no typo) lawyer Joe Jamail has been videotaped shoving wads of cash at his favored candidates. And in the late 70's, a thoroughly corrupt piece of work by the name of Don Yarbrough was elected to the Texas Supreme Court. The reason? His name was very close to former gubernatorial candidate Don Yarborough and senator Ralph Yarborough. He eventually fled the country and landed in Grenada where he was arrested and returned to the US to face trial (convicted, six years in the federal pen). It was a real thrill to see a former state Supreme Court justice cuffed and stuffed into the back of a cop car.

Even if Wisconsin had an alternative way of selecting judicial candidates, the outcome probably would have been the same. But, hyperpartisanship aside, we really don't want our judges selected the same way we pick dog catchers. Do we?
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

And why are there even elections for the Supreme Court? :confused:

Because we elect such vuckstains for governor we don't really want him or his henchmen loading the court. :)

You could just elect better governors :p

Case in point, look what happens when Walker is allowed to appoint people:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/119283094.html

On one hand, politicians do this all the time... it's just that usually, the politician will try to at least get someone who is somewhat qualified for the position before they do it. You would think with all the "Wisconsin's broke" talk, he would be a little less willing to give a $81,000+ salary handout to a 27-year old kid with no degree, no qualifications and a few drunk driving violations on his record. Shoot, even after Walker got caught, he only demoted him to a $60,000+ job.

I could get behind Walker if I thought for one second that he was a genuine money-saving Libertarian, but he's proving himself to be just another corrupt politician (at best).

So in other words... I've never been happier that we are voting for that bench seat. I would loathe the notion that Walker (or his predecessor: the Democratic equivalent, Jim Doyle) would be the ones to appoint the most important judgeships in the state with their campaign financiers. Sad as it might be, I think we can trust an electoral result better than we can from whatever corrupt tool we decide to elect as our governor.
 
Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Regardless of the outcome in Wisconsin, partisan elections for judges is the worst possible way to select them. In Texas, powerful, wealthy lawyers can manipulate the system to their benefit. Billionaire (no typo) lawyer Joe Jamail has been videotaped shoving wads of cash at his favored candidates. And in the late 70's, a thoroughly corrupt piece of work by the name of Don Yarbrough was elected to the Texas Supreme Court. The reason? His name was very close to former gubernatorial candidate Don Yarborough and senator Ralph Yarborough. He eventually fled the country and landed in Grenada where he was arrested and returned to the US to face trial (convicted, six years in the federal pen). It was a real thrill to see a former state Supreme Court justice cuffed and stuffed into the back of a cop car.

Even if Wisconsin had an alternative way of selecting judicial candidates, the outcome probably would have been the same. But, hyperpartisanship aside, we really don't want our judges selected the same way we pick dog catchers. Do we?

Elections for judges in Wisconsin are non-partisan by law. You cannot run for a judgeship with party backing. In practice, though, you are right that it ends up being a partisan thing: Prosser the right-wing choice, Kloppenberg the left-wing choice, and the usual lobbyists and campaign financiers on both sides. Despite a lot of evidence to the contrary, though, I do still have faith that both Prosser and Kloppenberg are much more independent than most people think.
 
Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Elections for judges in Wisconsin are non-partisan by law. You cannot run for a judgeship with party backing. In practice, though, you are right that it ends up being a partisan thing: Prosser the right-wing choice, Kloppenberg the left-wing choice, and the usual lobbyists and campaign financiers on both sides. Despite a lot of evidence to the contrary, though, I do still have faith that both Prosser and Kloppenberg are much more independent than most people think.

Well, there's non-partisan and non-partisan. My understanding is that Ms. Kloppenberg has been making speeches about restoring the balance as between the legislature, the governor and the judiciary. Wink. Wink. Nudge. Nudge. Is it possible she has a specific example of "balance" in mnd? The circumstances here are unique. Even so, I favor retention elections and independent judicial boards to select new judicial candidates. Intelligent people want less not more politics in the selection and retention of judges.

Assuming she's ultimately seated perhaps Ms. Kloppenberg will surprise us all. Perhaps. With her thinly veiled preferance for an outcome of a matter not yet before the court, I'm wondering if she's created sufficient grounds for her recusal.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Well, there's non-partisan and non-partisan. My understanding is that Ms. Kloppenberg has been making speeches about restoring the balance as between the legislature, the governor and the judiciary. Wink. Wink. Nudge. Nudge. It may be she's created grounds for her recusal from any consideration of the collective bargaining law. Is it possible she has a specific example of "balance" in mnd? The circumstances here are unique. Even so, I favor retention elections and independent judicial boards to select new judicial candidates. Intelligent people want less not more politics in the selection and retention of judges.

Assuming she's ultimately seated perhaps Ms. Kloppenberg will surprise us all. Perhaps.

I'd agree with your suggestion of judge selection by panel. Although I prefer general "non-partisan" election to selection by whatever dickwipe governor my state decides to elect, neither option is all that good.
 
Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

I'd agree with your suggestion of judge selection by panel. Although I prefer general "non-partisan" election to selection by whatever dickwipe governor my state decides to elect, neither option is all that good.

You got a list of qualified state district court judges in your head? No system is perfect, but having judges run on partisan ballots, like they do in Texas, is el numero uno worst. These panels that recommend prospective judges do just that, recommend. The voters make their choices from off the list. The problem is with elections for judges. Any system that allows the voters to decide opens the doors for the type of corruption we've all come to appreciate. But what's the alternative?
 
Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Well, there's non-partisan and non-partisan. My understanding is that Ms. Kloppenberg has been making speeches about restoring the balance as between the legislature, the governor and the judiciary. Wink. Wink. Nudge. Nudge.

As opposed to Prosser saying he'd be a "natural complement" to Walker and a GOP legislature. Wink, wink; nudge, nudge. Needless to say, he backed off that one once the **** hit the fan.
 
Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

As opposed to Prosser saying he'd be a "natural complement" to Walker and a GOP legislature. Wink, wink; nudge, nudge. Needless to say, he backed off that one once the **** hit the fan.

"Only your partisans are partisan! My partisans are above such things!"
 
Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

As opposed to Prosser saying he'd be a "natural complement" to Walker and a GOP legislature. Wink, wink; nudge, nudge. Needless to say, he backed off that one once the **** hit the fan.

So you approve of her apparantly prejudging a matter that will ultimately come before her if she's seated? Because you and she agree on the need for government employee unions to continue bleeding Wisconsin? As usual, an interesting theory on how the law should work. Or, expert on trolling that you claim to be, are you just flapping your lips? You'd love Joe Jamail.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

So you approve of her apparantly prejudging a matter that will ultimately come before her if she's seated? Because you and she agree on the need for government employee unions to continue bleeding Wisconsin?
Hey! The elected officials are struggling, STRUGGLING to survive on their 174,000$ a year and up salaries!

Oh... you were talking about teachers and the lower level public employee fatcats while ignoring that the WI republicans specifically did it to break unions as a long term political ploy for the presidency and to further their goals of giving kickbacks to their corporate supporters.
 
Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Hey! The elected officials are struggling, STRUGGLING to survive on their 174,000$ a year and up salaries!

Oh... you were talking about teachers and the lower level public employee fatcats while ignoring that the WI republicans specifically did it to break unions as a long term political ploy for the presidency and to further their goals of giving kickbacks to their corporate supporters.

That calls for another round.............of tax cuts for those job creators.
 
Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Hey! The elected officials are struggling, STRUGGLING to survive on their 174,000$ a year and up salaries!

Oh... you were talking about teachers and the lower level public employee fatcats while ignoring that the WI republicans specifically did it to break unions as a long term political ploy for the presidency and to further their goals of giving kickbacks to their corporate supporters.

Yes.
 
Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

So you approve of her apparantly prejudging a matter that will ultimately come before her if she's seated?

No, I just find it funny how you mention one and not the other. Both are reasons why elected judiciaries suck.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top