For Dems only.

[mr_genius]

http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/artic...m112707-CR.html

 

The boy was suspended for three days this month for allegedly committing a “hate crime” by using the expression “brown people.”

 

 

 

lock that 9 year up and throw away the key.

[Balta1701]

The state's director of science curriculum said she resigned this month under pressure from officials who felt she gave the appearance of criticizing the instruction of intelligent design.

 

The Texas Education Agency put Chris Comer on 30 days paid administrative leave in late October, resulting in what she described as a forced resignation.

 

The move came shortly after Comer forwarded an e-mail announcing a presentation being given by the author of Inside Creationism's Trojan Horse. In the book, author Barbara Forrest says creationist politics are behind the movement to get intelligent design theory taught in public schools. Comer sent the e-mail to several individuals and a few online communities.

 

Comer, who held her position for nine years, said she believes evolution politics were behind her ousting.

 

"None of the other reasons they gave are, in and of themselves, firing offenses," she said.

Link

[Balta1701]

And congratulations are in order, as the GOP in the Senate has, in less than 12 months, managed to obliterate the former record for most filibusters ever during any 2 year congressional term, absolutely blowing through the former number, set by the Dems in the last session in the Senate.

The filibuster may be well established in the popular consciousness — think of long-winded senators speechifying for days. But because modern Senate rules allow lawmakers to avoid the spectacle of pontificating by merely threatening the act, filibusters and the efforts to overcome them are being used more frequently, and on more issues, than at any other point in history.

 

So far in this first year of the 110th Congress, there have been 72 motions to stop filibusters, most on the Iraq war but also on routine issues like reauthorizing Amtrak funding. There were 68 such motions in the full two years of the previous Congress, 53 in 1987-88 and 23 in 1977-78. In 1967-68, there were 5 such votes, one of them on a plan to amend cloture itself, which failed.

[kapkomet]

So in other words, it's ok when the Dems do it, but not ok that the Re-pube-licans gave it right back to them?

 

Having said that, I think it stinks that basically it takes 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate, and that's not how the constitution meant for things to be - REGARDLESS of who's in power.

[longshot7]

Having said that, I think it stinks that basically it takes 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate, and that's not how the constitution meant for things to be - REGARDLESS of who's in power.

 

Yes it is. That's 2/3rds, right? The framers wanted to make it hard for any party to steamroll any legislation thru, protecting the minority.

[Balta1701]

Yes it is. That's 2/3rds, right? The framers wanted to make it hard for any party to steamroll any legislation thru, protecting the minority.

No, 2/3 of 100 is 66.6666666666666667 to a good approximation. To a worse approximation, it's 67.

 

And secondly, the Filibuster is actually not referred to anywhere in the Constitution. It's sort of a debate artifact created by the Rules of the Senate which appeared well after the Constitution. Stealing from Wikipedia:

Early use

 

In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate "to move the previous question," ending debate and proceeding to a vote. In 1806, Aaron Burr argued that the motion regarding the previous question was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years,[5] and should be eliminated. The Senate agreed, and thus the potentiality for a filibuster sprang into being. Because the Senate created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, the filibuster became an option for delay and blocking of floor votes.

 

The filibuster remained a solely theoretical option until 1841, when the Democratic minority tried to block a bank bill favored by the Whig majority by using this political tactic. Senator Henry Clay, a promoter of the bill, threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton rebuked Clay for trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate and he was unsuccessful in eliminating the filibuster with a simple majority vote.

 

[edit] The 20th century and the emergence of cloture

 

In 1917 a rule allowing for the cloture of debate (ending a filibuster) was adopted by the Democratic Senate[6] at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson.[7] From 1917 to 1949, the requirement for cloture was two-thirds of those voting.

 

In 1946 Southern Democrats blocked a vote on a bill proposed by Democrat Dennis Chavez of New Mexico (S. 101) that would have created a permanent Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC) to prevent discrimination in the work place. The filibuster lasted weeks, and Senator Chavez was forced to remove the bill from consideration after a failed cloture vote even though he had enough votes to pass the bill. As civil rights loomed on the Senate agenda, this rule was revised in 1949 to allow cloture on any measure or motion by two-thirds of the entire Senate membership; in 1959 the threshold was restored to two-thirds of those voting. After a series of filibusters led by Southern Democrats in the 1960s over civil rights legislation, the Democrat-controlled Senate[6] in 1975 revised its cloture rule so that three-fifths of the Senators sworn (usually 60 senators) could limit debate. Changes to Senate rules still require two-thirds of Senators voting. Despite this rule, the filibuster or the threat of a filibuster remains an important tactic that allows a minority to affect legislation. Strom Thurmond (D/R-SC) set a record in 1957 by filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes, although the bill ultimately passed. Thurmond broke the previous record of 22 hours and 26 minutes set by Wayne Morse (I-OR) in 1953 protesting the Tidelands Oil legislation.

 

The filibuster has tremendously increased in frequency of use since the 1960s. In the 1960s, no Senate term had more than seven filibusters. In the first decade of the 21st century, no Senate term had fewer than 49 filibusters. The 1999-2002 Senate terms both had 58 filibusters. [1] In the fall of 2007, the 110th Congress' 1st session broke the record, for fillibuster cloture votes, topping 70 as of Nov 15, 2007. It is on track to triple the number of such votes in 2008's 2nd session.

[Balta1701]

In 2004, CBS rejected an attempt by Move-on.org to put up an ad during the Super Bowl. Moveon complained, but CBS held its ground and the ad moved to CNN.

 

In 2006, NBC rejected another ad from Moveon. Each time, the networks said that they would reject issue-related ads on from controversial groups or on controversial topics.

 

Also in 2006, all of the networks rejected an ad from the United Church of Christ.

The 30-second commercial for the United Church of Christ will begin airing on cable networks and Spanish-language stations next week. The ad, called "Ejector," shows a gay couple, a single mother, a disabled man and others flying out of their pews as a wrinkled hand pushes a red button.

 

Text on the screen reads, "God doesn't reject people. Neither do we," and a voiceover says, "The United Church of Christ. No matter who you are or where you are on life's journey, you're welcome here."

 

Whether or not you agree with their policy, it at least seems that they were sticking to the policy. If a group was controversial or their message was controversial at all, then the networks were rejecting them.

Well, at least if it was a left-leaning group that is.

[Balta1701]

The WaPo has a disturbing, if unsurprising, bit this morning on the response of the Dems in Congress to the Administration's torture plans. Back in 2002, the Post says that Congressmen including Rockerfeller, Harman, and Pelosi were directly briefed on the Administration's plans for "Enhanced interrogations" of the sort that are seemingly so bad that the CIA makes videotapes of them disappear so that the people beating the Hell out of these detainees don't wind up going to prison themselves, and other than writing 1 complaint memo, the people in question did absolutely nothing in reply. They didn't object, they didn't hold hearings, they didn't blow the whistle, they didn't make any public statements exposing what the Administration was doing, they went completely along for the ride and just agreed with whatever the Administration said.

 

Couple of reactions from the usual suspects here if you want more.

Greenwald

Digby

One of the front page Daily Kos writers.

[FlaSoxxJim]

By: John Cole December 10, 2007 at 10:29 am

 

A well-known writer walked into a producer’s house and said to the producer that he had come up with a great act. The producer, intrigued, told the writer to briefly describe his idea.

 

“Well,” said the writer, “I have an idea for a political party who claims to be against the war in Iraq, but won’t do anything about it. The party will also claim to be against torture, but won’t do anything about that either. In fact, they will be swept into power precisely because of their public opposition to both of those things, but privately they will be informed of possible acts of torture performed by our government, and they won’t say anything about it. At any rate, they continue their two-faced behavior- publicly opposing the war and torture, but privately being apparently content with it, until the end of their congressional term, when they will all gather together on the floor of the House, where they will all publicly s*** on the original version of the Constitution, on loan from the National Archives.”

 

The producer looked at the writer, and said, “That is really quite disgusting. What do you call the act?”

 

The writer responded, “The Democrats.”

 

 

[kapkomet]

By: John Cole December 10, 2007 at 10:29 am

 

[FlaSoxxJim]

 

You know, whoever the heck it was around here that used to say "they all do it" may have been on to something after all.

[Balta1701]

By: John Cole December 10, 2007 at 10:29 am

Would never happen. A writer pitching an idea for free to a producer during a strike. HA!

[kapkomet]

You know, whoever the heck it was around here that used to say "they all do it" may have been on to something after all.

Seriously, it's so sad. These people are so in bed with each other... and it's all a front to maintain power. Above all else, Democrats and Re-pube-licans want nothing more then to maintain power. They say they are each for the people, and they aren't. They get their special interest lobby money for their pet projects, use it to campaign, and stay in power as long as they can. That has nothing to do with party affiliation.

 

I wish that either a.) a serious third party would form or b.) we could clean the slate of both parties out and get people with integrity running our government. I could deal with someone I disagree with if they told the truth. In that vein, I hope Obama gets the nomination, but I'm not holding my breath. Obama would at least make me think about voting Democrat for president.

[longshot7]

By: John Cole December 10, 2007 at 10:29 am

 

Oh, that's SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO funny.

[southsider2k5]

Seriously, it's so sad. These people are so in bed with each other... and it's all a front to maintain power. Above all else, Democrats and Re-pube-licans want nothing more then to maintain power. They say they are each for the people, and they aren't. They get their special interest lobby money for their pet projects, use it to campaign, and stay in power as long as they can. That has nothing to do with party affiliation.

 

I wish that either a.) a serious third party would form or b.) we could clean the slate of both parties out and get people with integrity running our government. I could deal with someone I disagree with if they told the truth. In that vein, I hope Obama gets the nomination, but I'm not holding my breath. Obama would at least make me think about voting Democrat for president.

 

The really sad thing is that the Dems didn't learn a thing from the Republician revolution. You have to deliver on those grandiose promises, or you will get delivered to the scrappile of history.

[kapkomet]

The really sad thing is that the Dems didn't learn a thing from the Republician revolution. You have to deliver on those grandiose promises, or you will get delivered to the scrappile of history.

It's because they are too arrogant to get it, and I mean both parties.

[Mplssoxfan]

You know, whoever the heck it was around here that used to say "they all do it" may have been on to something after all.

...or maybe he's just on something?

[Rex Kickass]

Ted Kennedy on the floor of the Senate today.

 

The President has said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA. But he has also said that he will veto any FISA bill that does not grant retro-active immunity. No immunity, no FISA bill. So if we take the President at his word, he's willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies.

 

Waits for Chappaquiddick to be dusted off.

[Balta1701]

I think we can all assume that this story means that the torture document and video destruction is proceeding at a good pace.

 

(Joke stolen from tapped)

[Rex Kickass]

Why was that the first thing I thought of too? I need a break from politics.

[longshot7]

what's the FISA bill and why does it need to be passed?

[Balta1701]

what's the FISA bill and why does it need to be passed?

The original need of the FISA bill stems from a ruling by the secret FISA court, which we have not seen despite efforts of the ACLU. In some way, it restricted the ability of the NSA to intercept signals involving fully overseas communications if those communications happened to travel on a path that took them through the United States. In theory, the President should have unlimited power to wiretap anyone outside of the U.S. who's not a U.S. citizen or someone protected by the U.S. constitution without having to obtain any sort of warrant, even from the FISA court, but that ruling, based on one interpretation of the law, would have limited that power presumably by requiring a FISA warrant if the communication traveled through U.S. wires. Again, I'm a bit sketchy there, because the ruling is secret.

 

Therefore, there is some logic that a bill amending FISA to allow warrantless wiretaps between 2 people outside of the country who happen to talk on a line that runs through the U.S. is necessary and in fact should be passed. A bill was passed over the summer doing so, but it was fitted with a 6 month expiration date because of the strong debate about the other clauses that the administration wanted included.

 

However, the Bush Administration, as always, wants about 800x that many things included in their bill. By far the single most controversial provision is one that the Senate and Harry Reid specifically keeps trying to include, a provision which brought about a mutiny and filibuster by Chris Dodd. That provision would provide amnesty to any telecom company which violated the law in any form as a part of the Administration's illegal warrantless wiretapping scheme that was uncovered in 2005, and in any other warrantless surveillance that we haven't learned about yet. Right now there are several lawsuits starting to work their way through the court system that may well be our best chance to figure out what exactly the Administration was doing for 6 years when there was no oversight, and all of those would be shut down if that clause was maintained.

 

Beyond that, there are other specific issues regarding privacy concerns that I don't think anyone has a good summary of, in no small part because the documents driving some of the debate are being kept secret even from many Senators.

 

I think that's a good summary of the issues. On one side, there is a need to pass something before Feb. to keep that fix to the FISA law. On the other hand, there is at least a small group adamantly opposed to giving immunity to the telecom companies for past lawbreaking.

[longshot7]

The original need of the FISA bill stems from a ruling by the secret FISA court, which we have not seen despite efforts of the ACLU. In some way, it restricted the ability of the NSA to intercept signals involving fully overseas communications if those communications happened to travel on a path that took them through the United States. In theory, the President should have unlimited power to wiretap anyone outside of the U.S. who's not a U.S. citizen or someone protected by the U.S. constitution without having to obtain any sort of warrant, even from the FISA court, but that ruling, based on one interpretation of the law, would have limited that power presumably by requiring a FISA warrant if the communication traveled through U.S. wires. Again, I'm a bit sketchy there, because the ruling is secret.

 

Therefore, there is some logic that a bill amending FISA to allow warrantless wiretaps between 2 people outside of the country who happen to talk on a line that runs through the U.S. is necessary and in fact should be passed. A bill was passed over the summer doing so, but it was fitted with a 6 month expiration date because of the strong debate about the other clauses that the administration wanted included.

 

However, the Bush Administration, as always, wants about 800x that many things included in their bill. By far the single most controversial provision is one that the Senate and Harry Reid specifically keeps trying to include, a provision which brought about a mutiny and filibuster by Chris Dodd. That provision would provide amnesty to any telecom company which violated the law in any form as a part of the Administration's illegal warrantless wiretapping scheme that was uncovered in 2005, and in any other warrantless surveillance that we haven't learned about yet. Right now there are several lawsuits starting to work their way through the court system that may well be our best chance to figure out what exactly the Administration was doing for 6 years when there was no oversight, and all of those would be shut down if that clause was maintained.

 

Beyond that, there are other specific issues regarding privacy concerns that I don't think anyone has a good summary of, in no small part because the documents driving some of the debate are being kept secret even from many Senators.

 

I think that's a good summary of the issues. On one side, there is a need to pass something before Feb. to keep that fix to the FISA law. On the other hand, there is at least a small group adamantly opposed to giving immunity to the telecom companies for past lawbreaking.

 

wow, that's interesting stuff. Thanks!

 

[NorthSideSox72]

The Uniter at his finest.

 

Amazing. ONE f***ING CANDIDATE they wanted him to change, and he refuses. He is worse than useless.

 

[Balta1701]

This is absolutely classic Bush Administration.

The White House just announced that President Bush intends to veto a major defense policy bill, citing concerns over language that it claims could endanger Iraqi assets held in U.S. banks.

 

In a written statement just released, White House deputy press secretary Scott Stanzel says the measure "would significantly amend current law (the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act) in ways that would imperil Iraqi assets held in the United States, including reconstruction and central bank funds."

 

...

Democrats are saying this is the first time they've heard of any administration objections. "The administration should have raised its objections earlier, when this issue could have been addressed without a veto," Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a joint statement. "The American people will have every right to be disappointed if the president vetoes this legislation, needlessly delaying implementation of the troops' pay raise, the Wounded Warriors Act and other critical measures."

We're nearly 7 years into this disaster of an administration, and the people running the executive branch still haven't even figured out the most basic details of how the legislative process works. Think about that for a moment. They've been in office for 7 years, and they're still making rookie mistakes like not bothering to read and investigate clauses in major bills until those bills are passed, well after the point where they could easily have negotiated away any clauses they have issues with, and are vetoing gigantic appropriations bills because of that ineptness. No Congressman would have gone to the floor for this little measure in a defense appropriation bill, yet we have to waste a month or two because the Administration didn't bother reading the bill and seeing if it might interfere with some of their diplomatic initiatives until after it was passed.