I haven't seen much on TV yet picking up on the newspaper stories that picked up on Glenn Greenwald's research, but Tim Russert actually alluded to it in MSNBC's post-news conference coverage.
Posted by Edward Copeland at January 26, 2006 08:44 AMThere is NO doubt in my mind, if the democrats do not filibuster Alito, the democratic party is dead. This is THE fight of our history as a democacy. The dems must filibuster EVEN IF THE GOP GOES NUCLEAR. THE DEMS MUST FIGHT AND MAYBE LOSE AND LIVE ANOTHER DAY TO FIGHT AGAIN - BUT IF THEY DO NOT FIGHT, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS DEAD.
Posted by jj at January 26, 2006 08:48 AMThe expression on his face says it all. He's thinking, "Go ahead and talk all you want. Because I know while you are babbling on, my cohorts are at your house cleaning you out". I just somebody in D.C. had the balls to slap that look off his face, the fuckin' loser.
Posted by at January 26, 2006 08:58 AMSorry, should read "I just wish*".
Posted by at January 26, 2006 08:59 AMThe GOP is making an issue about they let Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer get through in the 1990's even though they had an ideology that the GOP didn't agree with.
Funny thing, though - Orrin Hatch claims to have recommended Ginsburg to Clinton. Why would they recommend someone that had an ideology that they didn't agree with?
These clowns can't even get their bullshit straight these days...
Posted by (: Tom :) at January 26, 2006 09:03 AMWhen we watch reactionaries like the vile scabrous Kyl and blowdried Lindsay darkly "warn" about Dems opposing bootlicker Alito, remember both Ginsburg and Breyer WERE PRE-CLEARED with Hatch, the then-chair of Judiciary, as well as the Dem leader of the commmitte. Hence, 95 plus votes to confirm.
That's because the Constitution provides that the justices shall be selected by the president "with the advice and consent of the Senate". If you don't want a partisan political fight, then both parties should be consulted and at least their leadership should be on board with the pick.
Think that was done with Alito? No way. I wonder if Arlen even got to voice an opinion with Nero Jr. Perhaps he did, Pennsylvania is in the 3rd Circuit, Alito's appeals court. But the Dems weren't consulted, and didn't agree with the pick.
They thus have every right under the Constitution to oppose this turd, whatever ominous threats issue out of the mouths of the Authoritarian Brownsuit Party.
Posted by euzoius at January 26, 2006 09:29 AM"they would regret it if a Democratic president nominated judges later this decade"
I submit that voters turning out a republican president would also turn out extremist and corrupt republican senators thus, no teeth to that argument.
Posted by wfeather at January 26, 2006 09:36 AMI saw Rummy......he said he'd not even read the reports, then went on to call them flawed. Here is a guy who has presided over the most disasterous defeat of American forces in history, who's policies have failed across the board......I just can't take much more.
Posted by T2 at January 26, 2006 09:41 AMjj's comment above captures something of what I'm feeling and sensing among friends. This is perhaps a watershed moment in the Democratic Party: it's time to unite, fight (even if it may be a lost cause), and stand up for something. If not, the Party is going to look spineless and I'm afraid it's going to look permanently spineless.
Posted by Danton at January 26, 2006 09:48 AM"There is NO doubt in my mind, if the democrats do not filibuster Alito, the democratic party is dead." So Alito goes to the court and the Dems go away? (crossing fingers)
Posted by Cyber Sarge at January 26, 2006 10:47 AMSarge, that's right Sarge. You will have your one party dictatorship. Congrats you Nazi!
Posted by jj at January 26, 2006 10:53 AMCyber Sarge, like cyber sex, I suspect. Both being attainments purely in the realm of fantasy, reality going no further than masturbation, mental in one case and physical in the other.
Posted by sagesource at January 26, 2006 10:58 AMFurthermore, Steve, I think it should be noted yet again that Ginsburg was a common consensus judge nominee which Clinton had asked the GOP's advice on whom they would support PRIOR to Ginsburg's nomination. IOW, according to Specter's book, Clinton came to the Specter and consulted with the opposition party and asked whom they would accept. After the meeting he had walked away with the nod and approval of Ginsburg by the GOP.
Now can the same be said of Bush's consultation with the Democrats on Alito? No fucking way. It's a point that continues to be missed every time I hear Hannity and the Conservative blowhards bring up Ginsburg as a counterpoint to Alito's extemism. Ginsburg was given approval during consultation with the GOP PRIOR to his nomination. The same cannot ever be said of Bush's absolute ignorance of any Democratic consultation.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at January 26, 2006 11:01 AMSo Alito goes to the court and the Dems go away? (crossing fingers)
Good Lord. Even Bill O'Reilly sees the point of having two strong political parties. You are one big moron.
Posted by ann at January 26, 2006 11:07 AMi saw part of the press conference. Jr. looked absolutley defeated. He knows it's all over. Once the story of the Bush administration going to court saying that fisa was sufficient in 2002 his whole argument collapses. so the minority that buys his lies will fall further into their own morass.
Posted by Ga6thDem at January 26, 2006 11:18 AMi saw part of the press conference. Jr. looked absolutley defeated. He knows it's all over. Once the story of the Bush administration going to court saying that fisa was sufficient in 2002 his whole argument collapses. so the minority that buys his lies will fall further into their own morass.
Posted by Ga6thDem at January 26, 2006 11:18 AM
*****
I don't give Cyber Sarge's pink girly ass what the majority or minority breakdown on FISA-filching polling numbers are. The simple truth is that this asshole blatantly, knowingly, and deliberately broke the law and violated the Constitution.
The law doesn't take a backseat to Gallup polls. If Fat Karl and Co. wants to keep trying to spin criminal activity, let them keep digging. Hell, I'll throw the fuckers another shovel.
Posted by God Of War at January 26, 2006 11:35 AMGOW
I was talking about that 10-15% of the population. People like cybersarge are beyond hope. They never accept responsiblity.
i saw part of the press conference. Jr. looked absolutley defeated. He knows it's all over. Once the story of the Bush administration going to court saying that fisa was sufficient in 2002 his whole argument collapses. so the minority that buys his lies will fall further into their own morass.
Between the Greenwald piece and the fact that they continued to go to FISA for some warrants tells me absolutely that he knew they were breaking the law.
Posted by ann at January 26, 2006 11:57 AMGOW
I was talking about that 10-15% of the population. People like cybersarge are beyond hope. They never accept responsiblity.
Posted by Ga6thDem at January 26, 2006 11:46 AM
*****
I understand. My point is that breaking the law should be adjudicated in a courtroom, not in the court of public opinion.
Posted by God Of War at January 26, 2006 12:00 PMexactly ann, but it also indicates that the non-warranted survellience was probably some really dubious shit, like tapping the phone of some poor landlord or schmoe trying to sell his used car.
And the shit brain right (including Brownsuit senators) simply don't care. Incredible.
Posted by euzoius at January 26, 2006 12:10 PMI can't remember where I read it, but someone made the excellent point that we should not consider a Bush nominee at this time since it is entirely possible that Bush has committed a criminal act by ordering the NSA wiretaps. Until this is resolved, why should his nominee be even considered, less confirmed? A huge problem over the horizon could be if Bush is indicted, the Supreme Court might well have to hear the case of whether or not a sitting president can be indicted.......
Posted by Via at January 26, 2006 12:43 PMEven before Bush makes Health Savings Accounts the centerpiece of his health care initiative next week at the SOTU, there is evidence that they don’t work,
They're extremely popular with those who use them.
One new push coming from companies is to make a "healthy lifestyle" a part of their job requirements. They require healthy eating and an exercise program for all employees. The results have been dramatic reductions in company health care costs, fewer sick days, etc.
Posted by muckdog at January 26, 2006 01:09 PMMucky's right, there's nothing more unhealthy for women than childbirth. Forced sterilization for all but designated breeders!
Posted by iamcoyote at January 26, 2006 01:12 PMOne new push coming from companies is to make a "healthy lifestyle" a part of their job requirements. They require healthy eating and an exercise program for all employees. The results have been dramatic reductions in company health care costs, fewer sick days, etc.
Congress needs to get on this bandwagon. They are the posterboys for coronary disease, and I don't like my tax dollars paying for the results of their steak dinners with Abramoff.
Posted by ann at January 26, 2006 01:15 PMThey're extremely popular with those who use them.
Actually, you're confusing the current flexible spending plans (section 125 plans) with what Bush is proposing. Flexible spending plans are popular because they allow you to use pre-tax dollars for things that your health insurance won't cover (deductibles, co-pays, some OTC meds, glasses/contacts.) Combining a 125 plan with health insurance with a reasonable deductible makes many out of pocket medical expenses closer to affordable.
But if we're talking about a HSA combined with health coverage with a high deductible, like Bush is suggesting, that's another matter altogether. The wealthy will be able to stockpile pre-tax dollars for health care while the average worker will be SOL.
Posted by ann at January 26, 2006 01:20 PMUniversal healthcare is the only system that can safeguard privace. Soon, insurance comoanies will demand a blood sample so that they can deny coverage for those with genetic predispositions for certian diseases.
Posted by rlp at January 26, 2006 01:43 PMThnks gn Stv fr yr fn ssy n th lt nmntn. f my, lt hs nthng t d wth ‘wmn’s rghts,’ hmsxl/pdphl dvncy, pltcl schms, nvrnmntl tr-hggr sllnss, glbl wrmng, tc. lt, nd hs grp f crprt whrs, r th scl rslt f crprt mnpltn f r nc sld scl nstttns drng th pst 100 yrs. Bth Rbrts nd lt hv vrg ntllgnc, nlk th rst f th crprt whrs tht ccpy bth th Wht Hs nd Cngrss. (Th rsn why th Dmcrts ‘fl’ t cntr thr Rpblcn brthrs s twfld: thy wrk fr th sm lrds; nd thy hv zr nrgy n dng nythng bynd tryng t rmmbr gd plc t g t lnch nd ps s n mprtnt pblc prsn. Thy hv gd pychck; gd bnfts; sprfcl rspct frm strngrs, (knd lk ‘cnspcs cnsmptn’ tht th rdnry wlthy psrs prsnt t thr ‘cmmnty’ f strngrs s thy drv, y knw, nd lv n hs tht‘s, y knw.)
Lk ny pnk, gngstr, crmnl, lwyr, tc., th crprt lrd lks t jstfy hs bhvr. Mst f th wrld’s hthn slct sm slly wrld rlgn: Bddhsm, Hndsm, Dsm, Cnfcnsm, Sclr Hmnsm wth s vrs ‘scntfc’ ppndgs, Pgnsm, Chrstn Pgnsm, shmlsm (slm), Wtchcrft, ‘Qn f th Hvns, d nsm. Th crp pmps lv th Chrstn Pgnstc xplntn/jstfctn/jxtpstnsm (s Bn Frnkln sd, ‘Gd hlps ths tht hlp thmslvs;’ by, nw tht s crprt mssn sttmnt, r wht?) tht cnssts f th rsd knwn s, ‘Th Prtstnt thc.’ W wrk t gt hd; w wrk t mprss Gd; w wrk t ntr th kngdm f hvn, gss.
Nll Frgsn nd th lk f yn Rnd, (thr r cntlss thr crprt plgsts f tdy’s chtc lbrl cltr f rblln) r bth ntrstng fgrhds f Crprt mprl gls f prftrng nd pltcl dmntn, (th frmr yng n g, nd yn ws ncnt n flshnss t th mmnt f cncptn; hw ld s Stn?). Thy lv th crrnt stt f th wrld mddl clss rlgtd nt ntllctl pn f dldd gts tht r ll s hppy s bttm fdrs f thr wn vmt. nthr jxtpstn ccrs whn ths glbl lrds ssct Mchvllsm wth thr chrch gng, thgh slppng Prtstnt thc sllnss f frmly blvng tht thy cn nt nly crt thr wn rlty n thr mg, bt frc ll th srvvrs f thr bzrr plcs t lvd thm s mch s thy lv thr wn vmt.
Stv, lt dsn’t gv crp bt th rghts f wmn t dsrpt r mdrn Blshvk fmly strctr; h cldn’t cr lss bt slly glbl wrmng csd by mn r trs; h dsn’t cr bt dctn, hmsxl/pdphl prvrsn; nclr nrgy, pblc r prvt, tc. H dsn’t cr bcs th scl frcs tht st th prsnt cndtns nt mtn r 100 yrs ld. lt vn wrt n th 80’s tht w wld sm dy b bl t spy n dmstc mrcns. H s ntllgnt ngh t ndrstnd nt nly hw frcs f th scl cnstrctn f rlty r crtd nd mntnd, bt, lk Kssngr slghtly bfr hm, h flly ndrstnds tht thr s n gng bck. (ftr Grbchv kckd th lst Blshvk t f th Krmln, sprkng th Jwsh nd Blshvk mgrtn t ths cntry drng th 70’s; thy wrk fr r sm crprt cbls. Dd smn mntn tht r systm s lk th ld SSR? Th trtr glg? Lk t th Pntgn; C, bt dgrss.) Kss crrctly prdctd tht whn Grb nttd sm ’hmn rghts’ lng r mdrn crp lns f sng mn's nnt vl fr prft mrgns, thr ws n gng bck. Crp, whn w sw Rz Grbchv byng t th strs f Nw Yrk Cty yrs bfr Kss’s bv rmrks, t ws cmmn knwldg tht th SSR ws dmd by th spctr f th crprt cbl nd ts Hly Ghst f th Crdt Mnstr.
Th nly lt pltfrm s th prsrvtn f wrld dmnnc fr hs crprt mstrs. ny f th bv ‘sss’ tht bcm slnt r mrly bbbls f dcptn, f whch thr r svrl vrlppng lyrs, rdy t pp jst s th SSR’s pppd nd th cty f Bbyln's pppd n bt 539 BC. Thr s nthng nw ndr th sn. Rmmbr, r crp lrds nly lv pvrty f thy r ts crtr. Pvrty ndr cmmnsm s n-n; n mny fr prft thr.
Bttm ln: r crprt lrds r cmng t. Thy wll sn cntrl th xtrnl, flshy, tlvsn, ‘mrc,’ jst s thy hv ndd cntrlld vrythng bhnd th scns. Nw, thy wnt thr crntn, vry, vry, bg crntn. Th nxt bg stp wll b nw, hg, Tmpl f th Sclr Chrstn Hmnst, blt n pprctn t ll th lbrl nd ‘cnsrvtv’ fls tht wr s mzngly dpd.
Nvrthlss, whn ths gys tt, 'pc nd sfty,' Jhvh wll mst crtnly hv lttl smthng t dd; sspct tht nt nly r crprt lrds b th nly ns tht wll nt wnt nthng frm Jhvh, bt ths n prsn, ls, wll nt scp.
They're extremely popular with those who use them.….Posted by muckhogApparently one-half of the users aren't using them.
Half of the 2 million people who have signed up for consumer directed plans with health savings accounts have yet to put anything into the accounts. Interesting, as one of, if not the major attraction of the plans was the tax-favored status of the dollars going into the savings accounts.
What appears to be happening is what I (and others) have been predicting all along. Employers, staggering under the burden of rising health care costs, have all but given up and thrown in the towel. Those who have given up are dropping their health plans in favor of the new high-deductible plans, thereby shifting more of the burden onto employees. In those instances where the CDHP option is offered alongside regular heath plans, CDHP participation is in the low single digits.
The idea (at least the politicians’ idea) behind CDHPs is that they will make the consumers more directive, more involved, more aware of their health and thus better consumers. I’m not sure the employers care much about the theory; what they do care about is health care inflation is now less of a problem for them.
…
Here’s more detail from Milt Freudenheim’s article in today’s New York Times:
" people have evidently signed up not because they are eager to direct their own medical spending but because the plan looked cheap or they had no other insurance option. And at least half of those enrolled have not put money in their health savings accounts. So there will be no money building up for next year's out-of-pocket expenses — a big selling point for these health plans.
It's interesting that if the big bad government encourages healthy lifestyles by, say, taxing nicotine or alcohol, it's a infringement on citizen's rights. When corporations do, it's hunky dory.
"The GOP is making an issue about they let Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer get through in the 1990's even though they had an ideology that the GOP didn't agree with.
Funny thing, though - Orrin Hatch claims to have recommended Ginsburg to Clinton. Why would they recommend someone that had an ideology that they didn't agree with?
These clowns can't even get their bullshit straight these days..."
Hey Tom, the fact that Orrin hatch recommnended Ginsburg PROVES that the GOP is willing to vote for someone they disagree with if they are qualified. This is the way it has been for 100+ years until recently.
Posted by David at January 26, 2006 04:16 PM"i saw part of the press conference. Jr. looked absolutley defeated. He knows it's all over. Once the story of the Bush administration going to court saying that fisa was sufficient in 2002 his whole argument collapses. so the minority that buys his lies will fall further into their own morass."
===============================
Thanks. I needed a good spot of humor.
You guys have no clue that Bush is once again suckering the Dem's into debating national security, an issue he is NOT going to lose on despite the opinions of those on this website.
I said as part of my predictions a month ago that if the mid-term elections were about national security the Dem's would not win. If I were you I'd be calling my Senator and telling them to start talking about domestic issues like Health Care or the deficit. Those issues might give you some traction.
Posted by David at January 26, 2006 04:23 PMWhy do I suspect that David's 'advice' is an attempt to distract from the real issue that has had some traction in the last month? Something must be going right for us for once.
Posted by pessimist at January 26, 2006 04:54 PMSoto:
The GOP is making an issue about they let Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer get through in the 1990's even though they had an ideology that the GOP didn't agree with. This is hogwash, as both Ginsburg and Breyer did not have rulings and an overturn record that placed them out of the mainstream of legal thinking, whereas it can be argued that Alito does.
Ginsburg was the chief counsel to the ACLU. Breyer was the Democrats' chief counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Those were their jobs. Those jobs do not require rulings. For the past 15 years, Alito's job has required making rulings. Therefore, it is illogical and unfair to say that, because the object of Alito's job is to issue decisions, he is more culpable of whatever ideological crimes you say he is than are Ginsburg and Breyer in the opposite view of Republicans who did not withhold their support of Clinton's nominees when the roles were reversed.
What you said doesn't even rise to the dignity of the double standard.
Posted by Toby Petzold at January 26, 2006 05:44 PMWhat you said doesn't even rise to the dignity of the double standard.
Looking in the mirror again, Perfesser?
Ginsberg served as a judge for 13 years prior to being named to the Supreme Court.
As for Breyer, he served 14 years prior to his nomination.
Maybe you should go back to studying for that test you have coming up.
Posted by pessimist at January 26, 2006 06:41 PMMaybe you should go back to studying for that test you have coming up.
The GED?
Posted by snark at January 26, 2006 06:51 PMDavid
People on this website can't understand why people like you could believe bush is strong on national security after giving the green light to 9/11 while on vacation and spending $1 trillion and over 2200 lives to steal Iraq's oil, while bin laden is still "punking" him and the U.S. in front of the world. The worst thing a bully can do is let the victims see their vunerability. I have never met a brave bully.
Posted by smooth at January 26, 2006 07:13 PMMy point, Pessimist, is that Republicans did not use Ginsburg's and Breyer's partisan affiliations or even their judicial rulings against them, whereas Alito's own rulings are being used against him. Ginsburg and Breyer were excused from their own liberal biases because they were, as Alito is, well-qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, regardless of ideology. They were both overwhelmingly approved. That won't happen for Alito because the Democrats are being hypocrites.
Posted by Toby Petzold at January 26, 2006 07:42 PMToby, you willingly overlook the point that Clinton consulted with the GOP on both picks and got their input and grudging approval on both because neither one was out of the mainstream, despite their prior lives and legal/judicial history. In both cases, they were rated highly by the ABA as well.
Posted by Steve Soto at January 26, 2006 11:02 PMSteve, you may have to learn to look at Justice Alito as Israelis do the reality of Hamas being in power in the Palestinian areas: it's a development that may very well lead to the worst thing a lot of people can imagine (i.e., the loss of reproductive rights for American families), but one that might also make the choices between right and wrong very clear.
Of course, for my own part, I hope that the conservative Justices of the SCOTUS know better than to utterly ruin their party for the next generation by throwing out Roe. I suspect that they are politically aware enough to not do that to the GOP.
Posted by Toby Petzold at January 27, 2006 05:48 PMI agree with VIA. we should put a freeze on anything jr does until his potentially impeachable actions are investigated. I feel as if they're playing with loaded dice. I also believe that jr. and co. knew about the airstrikes of 9/11 and allowed it to happen to gain "control" and instill "fear" into Americans. Notice that jr's numbers go up when obl sends another tape? Notice how young obl is looking these days, even after reports that he was dying 5 years ago? You Suckers. Jr must hand.
Posted by sara swati at January 27, 2006 06:57 PMhang.
Posted by sara swati at January 27, 2006 06:57 PM