The Democrat Thread

[Reddy]

I trust that when they have the power/chance to use this in the future, they will find a way to abuse it in a way democrats didn't intend or imagine.

 

Guess what?

 

Democrats historically haven't been douchebags with the filibuster the way the GOP has under this president. I'm sure you've seen the numbers, but almost half of all nominees filibustered in the history of our country have come in the Obama administration.

 

We blocked 7 Bush appointments. The GOP blocked 30 Obama appointments in the first term alone.

 

Something had to be done, and frankly I don't see this biting us in the ass in the way you imagine for exactly that reason.

[Jake]

In their defense, they didn't want to block appointments. What they tried to do was shrink the size of the courts so there weren't any appointments to be made

[Balta1701]

In their defense, they didn't want to block appointments. What they tried to do was shrink the size of the courts until there was a Republican in the White House because only they should be able to appoint judges.

 

[Y2HH]

Guess what?

 

Democrats historically haven't been douchebags with the filibuster the way the GOP has under this president. I'm sure you've seen the numbers, but almost half of all nominees filibustered in the history of our country have come in the Obama administration.

 

We blocked 7 Bush appointments. The GOP blocked 30 Obama appointments in the first term alone.

 

Something had to be done, and frankly I don't see this biting us in the ass in the way you imagine for exactly that reason.

 

"WE" didn't block anything. You still seem to think you're part of that "we", and you aren't. They're rich, and part of a club you and I never will be invited too, whether there is an R or a D next to their name. I assure you, anything they do, they do it for themselves first and foremost to assure re-election, mostly by request of the corporations that own them...and maybe way down the line, ranking in at 100 or so in list of importance, come we the people.

 

I'm saying you and others hailing it as something great, that a day will come that you look back and regret it occurred. I don't know when or how, but a loophole or otherwise will be found using a similar procedure, and this will get expanded in scope/power, and the ruling party will essentially be in absolute power ... and while I do not like a two party system, I really really really don't like a one party system, even if it's only in place for a few years at a time.

 

I prefer they do nothing in Washington and continue blocking each other from getting anything major done, because it's clear they've all been bought and sold, and they aren't here for us anymore. The government has become the master ... while they're supposed to be the servant. A congress with a single digit approval rating should get replaced, but they won't get replaced...they'll mostly get re-elected (probably 90+% of them will win reelection despite this approval rating), because they have the money to do so...given to them by the corporations that put them there in the first place.

 

The constitution was written -- very specifically -- to protect the people from the government, not the other way around.

Edited November 23, 2013 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

At the very least, you didn't spell out at all in that post why it's a good thing that we don't have enough judges to handle the cases in front of them. That's legitimately the problem here, the judiciary is disturbingly vacant.

[Y2HH]

At the very least, you didn't spell out at all in that post why it's a good thing that we don't have enough judges to handle the cases in front of them. That's legitimately the problem here, the judiciary is disturbingly vacant.

 

These are the same judges that allow stuff like incredibly generalized software patents and patent trolling to occur...because the corporate masters that control the politicians have them appointed in the first place.

 

Do we REALLY want more of these?

 

Until I start seeing some sanity in our judiciary, I'm about done adding more of them to the system. They're so busy protecting the likes of Verizon and AT&T, that a 2 gig data package costs 60+$ a month, which isn't enough to cover a single f***ing Netflix HD movie.

 

I'm pretty much done with our entire government, and judiciary, because it's clear who they're writing laws for and who they're protecting in the courts, and it sure as hell isn't 'we the people'.

Edited November 23, 2013 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

These are the same judges that allow stuff like incredibly generalized software patents and patent trolling to occur...because the corporate masters that control the politicians have them appointed in the first place.

 

Do we REALLY want more of these?

 

Until I start seeing some sanity in our judiciary, I'm about done adding more of them to the system. They're so busy protecting the likes of Verizon and AT&T, that a 2 gig data package costs 60+$ a month, which isn't enough to cover a single f***ing Netflix HD movie.

 

I'm pretty much done with our entire government, and judiciary, because it's clear who they're writing laws for and who they're protecting in the courts, and it sure as hell isn't 'we the people'.

So the answer should be an empty chair?

 

This one isn't a problem with the legal system and it's not a good reason to stop having judges. It's a reason to fix the law at the place the law is written, Congress. Which of course...would require getting a bill through the Senate.

 

The Senate where a 60 vote majority will be required, where decent laws go to die.

[Y2HH]

So the answer should be an empty chair?

 

This one isn't a problem with the legal system and it's not a good reason to stop having judges. It's a reason to fix the law at the place the law is written, Congress. Which of course...would require getting a bill through the Senate.

 

The Senate where a 60 vote majority will be required, where decent laws go to die.

 

I'd rather the chair be empty so long as the person that's going to fill it is going to do nothing but protect corporations over the people. And by and large, that's exactly what they've been doing.

 

I mean, look at the recent judgement against Google for illegally spying on people...what was it, a 12 million dollar "record" fine?

 

That's like me doing 150mph in a 30mph zone, and getting a ticket for 16 cents. Yea, that'll show me.

 

...MEANWHILE, these same systems in place fined a single mother on welfare millions of dollars for sharing some songs. I mean, after all, corporations lost money because of that! While this was eventually reduced to 220k or something, it's still such a steep fine she will never be able to pay it back. Meanwhile, we fine Google what they probably make in 3 hours time.

Edited November 23, 2013 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

I'd rather the chair be empty so long as the person that's going to fill it is going to do nothing but protect corporations over the people. And by and large, that's exactly what they've been doing.

 

I mean, look at the recent judgement against Google for illegally spying on people...what was it, a 12 million dollar "record" fine?

 

That's like me doing 150mph in a 30mph zone, and getting a ticket for 16 cents. Yea, that'll show me.

So your solution is to get rid of speeding laws? Because quite literally that's what you're saying.

 

You know darn well I agree with you, but that's not a solution, that's a temper tantrum. That's taking your toys and going home.

[Y2HH]

So your solution is to get rid of speeding laws? Because quite literally that's what you're saying.

 

You know darn well I agree with you, but that's not a solution, that's a temper tantrum. That's taking your toys and going home.

 

That's NOT what I said in ANY regard.

 

I'm saying if I was caught doing that, I'd 1) get my license suspended, 2) go to jail, 3) pay fines into the thousands on top of 1 and 2. This is what prevents us from doing this. If the fine was a few pennies, everyone would speed, all the time.

 

What I'm saying is you don't take a mega corporation and slap them on the wrist for blatantly ignoring laws. You fine them hundreds of millions and let them know whats what, while deterring other mega corporations from trying something similar.

Edited November 23, 2013 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

That's NOT what I said in ANY regard.

 

I'm saying if I was caught doing that, I'd 1) get my license suspended, 2) go to jail, 3) pay fines into the thousands on top of 1 and 2. This is what prevents us from doing this. If the fine was a few pennies, everyone would speed, all the time.

 

What I'm saying is you don't take a mega corporation and slap them on the wrist for blatantly ignoring laws. You fine them hundreds of millions and let them know whats what, while deterring other mega corporations from trying something similar.

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

 

But you and i both agree right now we have a system where they instead pay a lobbyist $5 million to get the DOJ to ignore them or leave enormous, JP Morgan sized loopholes in the penalty.

 

The way to fix this problem is not "Shut down the judiciary". It's not "shutting down the government". You're begging for something to happen which only the government can do - enforcing the laws. What you need is to support people who are pushing the DOJ in the other way (senator Warren, for example) and to minimize the power of the people who think that by enforcing the laws the government is being too hard on business.

 

Having no judge in the chair is "I'm mad so I'm going home". It fixes nothing.

[Cknolls]

At the very least, you didn't spell out at all in that post why it's a good thing that we don't have enough judges to handle the cases in front of them. That's legitimately the problem here, the judiciary is disturbingly vacant.

 

Surely you are not referring to the DC appeals court. Take a look at their case load and tell me they need 3 more judges. It has declined steadily over the years.

[Balta1701]

Surely you are not referring to the DC appeals court. Take a look at their case load and tell me they need 3 more judges. It has declined steadily over the years.

This is testimony to Congress from a Judge on the 10th circuit court of appeals, Bush appointee and head of the Judicial Conference's Standing Committee on Judicial Resources, which tracks the workload and personnel needs of federal courts.

The D.C. [Circuit] Court of Appeals has been excluded from the pure numerical standard. We employ a different process with that court, because of the uniqueness of their caseload. They have a heavy administrative practice. … Those cases have multiple parties, typically issues of first impression, big records, things that make them somewhat outliers [compared] to some of the cases we see in the other circuits. Some of those cases are exclusive jurisdiction in the D.C. court. So for that reason, we've excluded them from the same processes as the other circuits.

 

He added that the DC Circuit's caseload “has been relatively steady the past ten years or so.”

 

Former justice on that court, John Roberts, once wrote a law journal article discussing this fact and justifying counting its caseload differently since many of its appeals are from Washington agencies.

 

Even if you just use the statistic of "total number of cases", there are 25% more or so before that court right now than in the mid-2000's when 3 of George W. Bush's nominees (including John Roberts) were confirmed to that court.

 

By both the actual standard used by judicial resources and by a simple counting which they say is inaccurate but you want to use...it's clearly ok to fill all the seats when a Republican is in the White House but unnecessary when Democrats are.

 

And that, of course, isn't the only one missing judges.

[Cknolls]

This is testimony to Congress from a Judge on the 10th circuit court of appeals, Bush appointee and head of the Judicial Conference's Standing Committee on Judicial Resources, which tracks the workload and personnel needs of federal courts.

 

 

He added that the DC Circuit's caseload “has been relatively steady the past ten years or so.”

 

Former justice on that court, John Roberts, once wrote a law journal article discussing this fact and justifying counting its caseload differently since many of its appeals are from Washington agencies.

 

Even if you just use the statistic of "total number of cases", there are 25% more or so before that court right now than in the mid-2000's when 3 of George W. Bush's nominees (including John Roberts) were confirmed to that court.

 

By both the actual standard used by judicial resources and by a simple counting which they say is inaccurate but you want to use...it's clearly ok to fill all the seats when a Republican is in the White House but unnecessary when Democrats are.

 

And that, of course, isn't the only one missing judges.

 

 

I will look for the case load stats. Who was that judge? And I love how you put in the simple counting which doesn't mean anything. Yeah counting case loads is inaccurate. 20 cases isn't 20 cases? When you govern by regulations and commissions you need your boys to uphold your policies. Karma is a b****. Can't wait for the Dems to wet themselves when the next R puts Supremem Court Justices on the court using this Democratic method.

[StrangeSox]

I will look for the case load stats. Who was that judge? And I love how you put in the simple counting which doesn't mean anything. Yeah counting case loads is inaccurate. 20 cases isn't 20 cases? When you govern by regulations and commissions you need your boys to uphold your policies. Karma is a b****. Can't wait for the Dems to wet themselves when the next R puts Supremem Court Justices on the court using this Democratic method.

The filibuster got us such noted moderates as Alito.

 

I really don't get why republicans think this is some sort of threat, they already appoint conservative judges.

 

edit: it will be good for Republicans to appoint SC justices using the small-d democratic process, anyway. The Senate is too anti-democratic as it is, and rules like the filibuster that were historical accidents should be done away with.

Edited November 24, 2013 by StrangeSox

[DukeNukeEm]

Y2HH, I think my cock moved reading those posts. Beautiful, arousing, so right on the mark I couldnt have said it better myself.

 

Burn it down. The system is broken beyond repair.

[Balta1701]

Ewww.

[StrangeSox]

We do some pretty terrible things in our justice system.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/11/2...nviction-trial/

 

Browder was a 16-year-old sophomore in high school walking home from a party in the Bronx when he was arrested on a tip that he robbed someone three weeks earlier. He was hauled off to Rikers Island, a prison known for punishing conditions and overuse of force, and was held because he couldn’t pay the $10,000 bail. Browder went to court on several occasions, but he was never scheduled for trial. After 33 months in jail, Browder said a judge offered freedom in exchange for a guilty plea, threatening that he could face 15 years in jail if convicted. He refused. Then one day, he was released with no explanation.

 

“They just dismissed the case and they think it’s all right. No apology, no nothing,” he told WABC-TV. Now at age 20 with his teen years behind him, Browder is first faced with finishing his GED and trying to make up for three years of his teen years lost.

 

Browder says he spent more than 400 days in solitary confinement, was deprived of meals, and was assaulted and beaten both by officers and fellow inmates. Browder attempted suicide at least six times. Last month he filed a lawsuit last month against the city and several agencies. The Bronx District Attorney’s office has declined to comment.

 

Despicable. Hope he gets enough out of the city and other agencies to be set for life.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Jesus. How does the Judge still have a job? And where is his attorney?!

[StrangeSox]

That friend-of-a-friend I mentioned before that was eventually convicted of 2nd degree murder sat in Cook County for months and months before his family could scrape together the cash for bail (it was $50k IIRC). If they hadn't been able to, he'd have been sitting in Cook County for about three years before his trial finished.

[Reddy]

"WE" didn't block anything. You still seem to think you're part of that "we", and you aren't. They're rich, and part of a club you and I never will be invited too, whether there is an R or a D next to their name. I assure you, anything they do, they do it for themselves first and foremost to assure re-election, mostly by request of the corporations that own them...and maybe way down the line, ranking in at 100 or so in list of importance, come we the people.

 

I'm saying you and others hailing it as something great, that a day will come that you look back and regret it occurred. I don't know when or how, but a loophole or otherwise will be found using a similar procedure, and this will get expanded in scope/power, and the ruling party will essentially be in absolute power ... and while I do not like a two party system, I really really really don't like a one party system, even if it's only in place for a few years at a time.

 

I prefer they do nothing in Washington and continue blocking each other from getting anything major done, because it's clear they've all been bought and sold, and they aren't here for us anymore. The government has become the master ... while they're supposed to be the servant. A congress with a single digit approval rating should get replaced, but they won't get replaced...they'll mostly get re-elected (probably 90+% of them will win reelection despite this approval rating), because they have the money to do so...given to them by the corporations that put them there in the first place.

 

The constitution was written -- very specifically -- to protect the people from the government, not the other way around.

 

I think everyone in America agrees on this, yet somehow we don't act on it with our votes and it's pretty sad. You guys should watch the TV show Continuum on Netflix (Canadian show), but its premise is exactly what you described and where it all leads 60 years from now. Awesome show.

 

But yes, I'm a Democrat, and they're Democrats, so in that regard it is a "we" - but I know how you get about semantics

 

[Y2HH]

I think everyone in America agrees on this, yet somehow we don't act on it with our votes and it's pretty sad. You guys should watch the TV show Continuum on Netflix (Canadian show), but its premise is exactly what you described and where it all leads 60 years from now. Awesome show.

 

But yes, I'm a Democrat, and they're Democrats, so in that regard it is a "we" - but I know how you get about semantics

 

When I vote, I actually DO act on it with my vote. If I think a democratic candidate deserves the job, especially when this decision can be made on past performance, I'll vote for them, same goes for I's and R's.

 

But if you've shown that you're going to vote for corporate interests, or other such nonsense, I will not vote them back into office. Other people do, though ... which is exactly how this 9% approval rating congress will get mostly re-elected with relative ease.

[StrangeSox]

When I vote, I actually DO act on it with my vote. If I think a democratic candidate deserves the job, especially when this decision can be made on past performance, I'll vote for them, same goes for I's and R's.

 

But if you've shown that you're going to vote for corporate interests, or other such nonsense, I will not vote them back into office. Other people do, though ... which is exactly how this 9% approval rating congress will get mostly re-elected with relative ease.

 

That 9% approval rating is a bit misleading since we don't elect representatives at-large across the entire country or even across an entire state for the House. Both me and a die-hard conservative in Texas might strongly disapprove of Congress right now, but I'll bet that that person loves them some Ted Cruz whereas I'd think he's exactly the cause of the problem, not my guy.

[Y2HH]

That 9% approval rating is a bit misleading since we don't elect representatives at-large across the entire country or even across an entire state for the House. Both me and a die-hard conservative in Texas might strongly disapprove of Congress right now, but I'll bet that that person loves them some Ted Cruz whereas I'd think he's exactly the cause of the problem, not my guy.

 

Misleading yes, but still very very bad.

[Jake]

I constantly call my Republican rep. I didn't vote for him last time, but I did vote for my old Republican rep. (Tim Johnson). Johnson was quite the moderate, something like a unicorn. Good guy, weak handshake.

 

My new guy, Adam Kinzinger, is pretty inexperienced and more conservative. He has voted for compromise on a few big votes, though -- like the fiscal cliff -- and I always make sure to let him know when I notice that he has done something like that.