Is electing judges, as many states do, a good idea? Sandra Day O'Connor says no.
Former Justice O'Connor leads push to end judicial elections - CNN.com
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Fighting Terrorism vs. Privacy Rights
The attempted bombing of a jet liner heading to Detroit on Christmas day has renewed the debate over some proposed security measures such as full body scans and passenger (racial/ethnic) profiling. What do you think about these issues?
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Leading Chinese Dissident Gets 11-Year Prison Term
Update on Human Rights in China:
Leading Chinese Dissident Gets 11-Year Prison Term: "A Chinese court has sentenced Liu Xiaobo, a prominent dissident, to 11 years in jail on subversion charges after he called for sweeping political reforms.
"
Leading Chinese Dissident Gets 11-Year Prison Term: "A Chinese court has sentenced Liu Xiaobo, a prominent dissident, to 11 years in jail on subversion charges after he called for sweeping political reforms.
"
Washington is on track to add seat in U.S. House
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION!
It may give our State more clout after the 2010 census!
Washington is on track to add seat in U.S. House
It may give our State more clout after the 2010 census!
Washington is on track to add seat in U.S. House
Monday, December 21, 2009
Is it time to kill the filibuster?
Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States is there a mention of a filibuster. Article I of the Constitution gives each house of Congress the right to make its own rules, and the use of the filibuster has been a tradition in the U.S. Senate for over two centuries. (The House of Representatives used it in our republic's early days, but banned it in the early 19th century.)
When President Bush was in office, Republicans complained that the Democrats were unfairly using the filibuster to keep certain right-wing judges from being brought to the floor for a confirmation vote. The Republican majority at the time threatened to do away with the filibuster, calling it first the "nuclear option" and when that phrase didn't poll well, they called it the "constitutional option."
Now, the majority party is the Democrats, and many on the left are howling about the Republicans abusing the filibuster. Other than it being a unique and quirky element of our Senate, I find the filibuster hard to defend as it has been used in recent decades. It was used rarely and required Senators to remain on the floor speaking throughout the entire filibuster. It was an exhausting, last-ditch effort that Senators would use only in very rare cases. A filibuster would end only when the Senator (or group of Senators) sat down and stopped speaking, thus yielding the floor to another Senator.
The modern filibuster does not require such sacrifice however. Under this system, as I understand it, those in the minority wanting to block legislation can simply declare a "procedural filibuster" which allows them to stop Senate business without having to actually stand and speak. They can hold onto this for as long as they want until a motion to end debate (cloture) passes with 3/5ths of the Senate (60 votes).
What was the original purpose of a filibuster? Does it still make sense to allow filibusters since they are used so often in recent decades? Our democracy wants answers!
Some thoughts:
The filibuster: let's talk about it - James Fallows
Op-Ed Columnist: A Dangerous Dysfunction: "The difficulty of trying to pass health care reform shows how dysfunctional the Senate, and the United States government as a whole, has become."
E.J. Dionne in the Washington Post has gone so far as to say that "everyone must get it through their heads that thanks to the bizarre habits of the Senate, we are no longer a normal democracy.
Colbert King, also of the Washington Post reminds us though that what people think of the filibuster often depends on who is in the majority and who is in the minority. Liberalslove hate the filibuster.
When President Bush was in office, Republicans complained that the Democrats were unfairly using the filibuster to keep certain right-wing judges from being brought to the floor for a confirmation vote. The Republican majority at the time threatened to do away with the filibuster, calling it first the "nuclear option" and when that phrase didn't poll well, they called it the "constitutional option."
Now, the majority party is the Democrats, and many on the left are howling about the Republicans abusing the filibuster. Other than it being a unique and quirky element of our Senate, I find the filibuster hard to defend as it has been used in recent decades. It was used rarely and required Senators to remain on the floor speaking throughout the entire filibuster. It was an exhausting, last-ditch effort that Senators would use only in very rare cases. A filibuster would end only when the Senator (or group of Senators) sat down and stopped speaking, thus yielding the floor to another Senator.
The modern filibuster does not require such sacrifice however. Under this system, as I understand it, those in the minority wanting to block legislation can simply declare a "procedural filibuster" which allows them to stop Senate business without having to actually stand and speak. They can hold onto this for as long as they want until a motion to end debate (cloture) passes with 3/5ths of the Senate (60 votes).
What was the original purpose of a filibuster? Does it still make sense to allow filibusters since they are used so often in recent decades? Our democracy wants answers!
Some thoughts:
The filibuster: let's talk about it - James Fallows
Op-Ed Columnist: A Dangerous Dysfunction: "The difficulty of trying to pass health care reform shows how dysfunctional the Senate, and the United States government as a whole, has become."
E.J. Dionne in the Washington Post has gone so far as to say that "everyone must get it through their heads that thanks to the bizarre habits of the Senate, we are no longer a normal democracy.
Colbert King, also of the Washington Post reminds us though that what people think of the filibuster often depends on who is in the majority and who is in the minority. Liberals
Disappointing health care bill better than none at all
I wrote a post a few days ago in defense of Obama - largely because of my reaction to the developments in the Senate, where the "public option" and expanded Medicare proposals had been dropped in order to placate Sen. Joe Lieberman. A few others have made stronger arguments than I, from the same perspective. A sampling:
Paul Krugman, economist and leading progressive columnist: Pass the Bill
Ezra Klein - Still time to think small
Matthew Yglesias » The Way Forward
Paul Krugman, economist and leading progressive columnist: Pass the Bill
Ezra Klein - Still time to think small
Matthew Yglesias » The Way Forward
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Some Losing Faith in Obama almost one year later
How do you feel about the job Barack Obama is doing as our President? He entered office with some of the highest expectations of any President I can remember. However, in a very challenging time of both war and recession, many are beginning to lose faith in his ability as a leader. What do you think? The following is a report from NBC News.
While I have been deeply disappointed in some of the decisions the President has made, I still think he has the potential to become a great president. Unlike most liberals/progressives, I still consider myself a supporter. Perhaps that is because as a student of history, my expectations were not as great as many of my compatriots on the left. We still live in a nation with a very strong conservative movement that is beguiled by the beliefs that through military might and a near blind faith in free markets, we will always be number one in the world.
On the whole, Americans like the idea of change, just as long as that change doesn't ask much sacrifice on their part. Americans are a compassionate people, but are suspicious of big government and succumb to the stereotype that most of the poor in America are lazy or are the victim of their own poor decisions. Deep down, Americans still believe in the Horatio Alger myth, that God is on our side, and foreigners who don't see us as a beneficent power are irrational, warped fanatics.
That is the country Barack Obama is trying to lead. In most cases, I think he has the good sense to lead us down the path that will bring us to a more just and humane world. However, there are tremendously powerful forces against change in this nation.
The forces of militarism and greed that Martin Luther King railed against promoted hatred and intolerance of him. King, however, was a crusader and a martyr for his cause. Barack Obama is a politician whose power is restrained in many ways. Politics is, as has been observed, the art of compromise. In order to get things done in politics one often has to swallow hard and accept what is possible instead of what is ideal.
Looking back on the past year, I think we may come to see his first year in office as a time of naive hopefulness in the process of gentile politics and rational discussion, and that he may have realized too late that at times the gloves have to come off. It is very clear now that his political opponents never had any intention of cooperating with this left-leaning Democrat. He may have wasted valuable months in office trying to court those that were never dealing with him in good faith.
Still, even as disappointed as I am that we are escalating a war I wish we could be done with; as disheartened as I am about the direction health care reform has taken; and as surprised as I am at the lack of a reversal of all of the Bush policies that trampled on civil liberties, I still think he has the intelligence and ability to get us farther down the road of social and political progress.
I am unconvinced that any other serious candidate for President would be doing a better job with the challenges set before this President. I am still glad to have supported and worked for his election, and I will criticize the actions and policies I disagree with. However, I am convinced the America I envision is much closer to becoming a reality with a President Obama than a President Bush, President McCain, President Edwards, President Huckabee, President Romney, or any of the other cast of characters that sought to occupy the Oval Office.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
While I have been deeply disappointed in some of the decisions the President has made, I still think he has the potential to become a great president. Unlike most liberals/progressives, I still consider myself a supporter. Perhaps that is because as a student of history, my expectations were not as great as many of my compatriots on the left. We still live in a nation with a very strong conservative movement that is beguiled by the beliefs that through military might and a near blind faith in free markets, we will always be number one in the world.
On the whole, Americans like the idea of change, just as long as that change doesn't ask much sacrifice on their part. Americans are a compassionate people, but are suspicious of big government and succumb to the stereotype that most of the poor in America are lazy or are the victim of their own poor decisions. Deep down, Americans still believe in the Horatio Alger myth, that God is on our side, and foreigners who don't see us as a beneficent power are irrational, warped fanatics.
That is the country Barack Obama is trying to lead. In most cases, I think he has the good sense to lead us down the path that will bring us to a more just and humane world. However, there are tremendously powerful forces against change in this nation.
The forces of militarism and greed that Martin Luther King railed against promoted hatred and intolerance of him. King, however, was a crusader and a martyr for his cause. Barack Obama is a politician whose power is restrained in many ways. Politics is, as has been observed, the art of compromise. In order to get things done in politics one often has to swallow hard and accept what is possible instead of what is ideal.
Looking back on the past year, I think we may come to see his first year in office as a time of naive hopefulness in the process of gentile politics and rational discussion, and that he may have realized too late that at times the gloves have to come off. It is very clear now that his political opponents never had any intention of cooperating with this left-leaning Democrat. He may have wasted valuable months in office trying to court those that were never dealing with him in good faith.
Still, even as disappointed as I am that we are escalating a war I wish we could be done with; as disheartened as I am about the direction health care reform has taken; and as surprised as I am at the lack of a reversal of all of the Bush policies that trampled on civil liberties, I still think he has the intelligence and ability to get us farther down the road of social and political progress.
I am unconvinced that any other serious candidate for President would be doing a better job with the challenges set before this President. I am still glad to have supported and worked for his election, and I will criticize the actions and policies I disagree with. However, I am convinced the America I envision is much closer to becoming a reality with a President Obama than a President Bush, President McCain, President Edwards, President Huckabee, President Romney, or any of the other cast of characters that sought to occupy the Oval Office.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Guantanamo Detainees Heading to Illinois
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Weakened Health Care Bill Set to Advance in Senate
By dropping the public option that liberals cherish, there just might be 60 Senate votes for cloture to end a filibuster on the health care bill. Why Joe Lieberman is driving liberals/progressives nuts:
Rachel Maddow's report on the latest developments:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Rachel Maddow's report on the latest developments:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Effective Use of the "Bully Pulpit"? Obama takes bankers to task
Is this an effective use of the bully pulpit? Is Obama going to get results by taking on the bankers in a public way? It seems to me that without asking Congress for new legislation, this is the only tactic the President has at this time. It seems that he is having some impact on the big bankers, but is Obama, as portrayed by the media, coming across as "being tough on the fat-cats" or a desperate guy with few options? What do you think?
First from Monday night's newscast:
A day earlier, on a broadcast of "60 Minutes":
Watch CBS News Videos Online
First from Monday night's newscast:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
A day earlier, on a broadcast of "60 Minutes":
Watch CBS News Videos Online
Monday, December 14, 2009
Protests at Copenhagen Climate Conference
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)