Skip to main content

View Diary: Romney flailing and failing (177 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I hope this election cycle mauls Citizen's United (4+ / 0-)

    and it's various billionaire benefactors in the wallet to the point where they are fearful about shitting away hundreds of millions again in a future cycle.

    That would be the only thing besides Democratic holds and wins to make this year even more delicious.

    What a disaster. What an utter total fucking beautiful disaster for the Right.

    What we are witnessing is a nightmare for Karl Rove and company. This, by all lazy paint-by-number conventional wisdom standards, and lazy paint-by-numbers conventional wisdom still governs much of our media, political discourse, and politics itself, should have been a Democratic Pigfuck to make the 2010 Pigfuck seem tame by comparison.

    Only.

    It not only isn't a Democratic Pigfuck to be, it's actually may be turning into a potential Movement Conservative one right in front of the nation's eyes.

    And the Right is collectively saying 'how the fuck is this happening?"

    Let them blame Romney, and run Ryan next time.

    I'm all for it. That means they still don't get that they have to change.

    This election cycle is one of the most important in our lifetimes for many reasons, but one of the biggest reasons is that the demographci changes in this great nation of ours is at, or close to, the point where the GOP 'scare the suburban and rurual working poor white people with racism and lies' tactic becomes impotent and obsolete.

    They cannot afford to squander this one, and it appears that they are.

    Best of all, they don't seem to either understand why it's not working, and what to do to deal with that to prevent this from happening again in the future.

    They have to change how they do politics, and they not only won't, but they can't because they keep going back to Lee Atwater as if it's 1988. A party of white racism and top down class warfare facing the age of majority minority and all that means for the future.

    I am from the Elizabeth Warren and Darcy Burner wing of the Democratic Party

    by LeftHandedMan on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 06:50:59 AM PDT

    •  Also (0+ / 0-)

      Could the Citizen's United and CrossRoads USA ads been worse?

      Awful, awful stuff.

      I live in Nevada, have seen them all, and the vast majority of them have been the worst ads I have ever seen in terms of effectiveness or persuasiveness.

      I am from the Elizabeth Warren and Darcy Burner wing of the Democratic Party

      by LeftHandedMan on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 06:52:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually SCOTUS is my main concern (4+ / 0-)

      Another Thomas or Scalia and it is all over.

      Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism. It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in order to establish ministerial gates to collect toll. John Leland

      by J Edward on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 06:54:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think the ACA decision (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chloris creator

        was a bit of an indicator that they realized they had gone to far.

        In short I've said at length before how my Con Law professor shaped my view, which is that the SCOTUS has 12 bailiffs, why do we listen to them? Judicial Review is after all made up (Marbury v. madison). So they have a tight-rope to be relevant. As look at the federal Court's "Orders" to clean up asylums in the 60's-70s no one listened so we pretended it happened.

        They got close before striking down new deal plan after new deal plan. I don't know if I said on here, but I really thought the ACA would be upheld (but by a plurality) because if they did this, it would again make them look completely partisan. And why would a president/congress (if they start trying to run the country) listen, when the country is pissed, and well, I don't think their bailiffs out-number the coast-guard alone :-). That was much more snarky than my normal posts. But the point is, they are very conscious of how they look (started to make me wonder) and I guessed they'd realize in the ACA (my dad is a UN after that swift-boat crap, he can vouch) so had to uphold. Maybe indicates a lesson learned, I hope.

        But still I agree I don't want a Scalia, Scalito, Thomas. Except in Lujan Scalia was kind of funny in how much of a prick he was being.

        •  Judicial review is "made up?" (0+ / 0-)

          And "Scotus has 12 bailiffs?"

          Um, are you sure you're an actual attorney, or do you just play one on the internet?

          Judicial review is no more or less "made up" than any other principle of jurisprudence. And last time I counted, there were 9, not 12 justices.

          •  So Jefferson and Hand, eh nobodies, Marshall (0+ / 0-)

            Didn't decide something totally to enable a power not enumerated? Causing a debate still raging?

            Why don't you dust off your Con Law book, and re-read Marbury then the comments of the Hand-Weschler debate and say that again?

             Or See L. HAND, THE BILL OF RIGHTS 1-30 (1962), in which Hand professed an inability to justify the antidemocratic nature of judicial review. (We made it up so we must use sparingly is the essence of his argument).

            That debate still rages on between "interpretivist" and "noninterpretivist" theorists.

            No? Compare Brest, The Misconceived Questfor the Original Understanding, 60 B.U.L. REv. 204 (1980),
            with Monaghan, Our Perfect Constitution, 56 N.Y.U. L. REV. 353 (1981).

            Which yes began with Marbury, as Jefferson/Madison would not Obey. So Marshall made an extremely slick decision where rather than say first "we don't have jurisdiction and dispose" he said everything he wanted, but then but you don't have to obey (knowing they wouldn't so he boxed them in by letting them "win" only in a very shallow way) here we don't have jurisdiction (most importantly co-ordinate branches are subject to judicial review, and the POTUS has to obey us- something that horrified Jefferson as until then the belief was each interpreted the Constitution for themselves).

            So . . . it is a balancing act, just as I see the SCOTUS trying now. Sorry if I assumed there were three more guys with guns  at the metal detector who have no chance to convince a POTUS to obey if he doesn't want, Marshall realized and hence this decision, and hence the debate still today.

            And what I see as the SCOTUS getting close Pre-ACA to the question "why do we listen" which isn't so much about judicial review but about their inability to make someone like the President Obey if the public is on his side and or he simply doesn't want to, it threatens their power, they are always walking this tight-rope.

            I think that influenced their thought as yes it is made up, and yes they are highly aware of being viewed in a certain way to the extent it alters thinking.

            And as a sidenote Roberts did exactly what Marshall did. Why not just decide the ACA decision on taxation? Then say we won't reach the Commerce issues as Moot. It was calculated.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site