"The other is as a constitutional officer who represents the Chamber as a whole and is third in line to the Presidency."

The second role is not constitutionally based but is merely a policy choice.

As to representing the Chamber as a whole, Rep. Kevin McCarthy is the Majority Leader now. So, we already partially bifurcate the roles. Recall that Tom DeLay was the ML, with Dennis Hastert, more of non-entity, the Speaker of the House. It is merely practice that makes the Speaker also a political animal that is also partisan in nature.

Perhaps, the role should be purely ceremonial, judged by seniority. The non-constitutional role of third in line can be altered though an elder states-person there might be a useful placeholder.


 

I don't really understand your proposal. It would be easy enough, I suppose, to transfer all the Speaker's functions to the Majority Leader, and make the Speaker a purely ceremonial position like president pro tem. I am not sure what would be accomplished by that, however.

On the other hand, making the Speaker a truly non-partisan presiding officer as in the House of Commons would require a radical change in House rules and practice. Entirely different thing.
 

" ...the Speaker of the British House of Commons; a member of the majority party who becomes a presiding officer..." To get elected Speaker by the House, an MP obviously needs support from the majority party at the time, and has to be reelected at the start of a new Parliament. But there is no alternance. Speakers tend to serve a long time, much longer than Prime Ministers. John Bercow (maverick Tory) has been Speaker since 2009, and SFIK faces no challengers. His predecessor Michael Martin (Old Labour right-winger) served nine years.
 

PS: The popular Labour MP Betty Boothroyd was elected Speaker in 1992 under a Tory majority in he House. This was atypical, but not shocking. The Speaker cuts all formal ties with his or her party of origin on election, and personalities are key factors.

The Speaker's three Deputies are curious hybrids: they do not vote in debates or take political positions in the House, but stand in constituency elections under their party labels.
 

The drafters of the Constitution modeled the House after Parliament and viewed the Speaker as analogous to a Prime Minister without the executive power. This is why the Speaker is in the line of succession.

Why exactly would Congress want to reduce the Speaker to a ceremonial "president in waiting" position like the Vice President and transfer the substantive leadership powers to the Majority Leader? The majority caucus elects both positions.

What is going on right now is essentially a civil war between the voters and the GOP and Democrat party establishments.

Both party establishments are invested in our progressive political economy. The Democrats more than the Republicans, but not by much.

A majority of the voters are center-right and want a dramatically more limited government, admittedly so long as their own welfare state benefits are protected.

Since Reagan, the party establishments have been campaigning center-right to get a majority and then governing from the left by either expanding government or defending past expansions of government. The voters are beginning to catch onto this game.

In 2006 and 2008, the Democrats ran to the right of the GOP to gain Congress and then the White House. This was a calculated strategy advanced by Rahm Emmanuel.

After the Democrats governed sharply left and dramatically expanded the size and reach of government, the voters fired over 1,000 Democrats between 2010-2014 and replaced them with Republicans promising to reverse this expansion.

However, the GOP establishment running Congress only made one concerted effort to marginally shrink government as the price of raising the debt ceiling. Otherwise, they have limited Congress to holding show votes and have fully funded all the policies the voters hired them to reverse.

As a result, the Tea Party war with the GOP establishment we began in 2009 has now expanded to a super majority of the GOP electorate. 70% of GOP voters currently disapprove of their own party leadership.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/nbcwsj-poll-7-10-gop-voters-dissatisfied-boehner-mcconnell

Polls are meaningless sentiment without action, though. What has started to move the House GOP caucus is that the local GOP party members have been giving their Congress critters hell when they return home. As the public face of the GOP caucus, Boehner was under particularly intense pressure from all over the country.

That is why Boehner retired and why McCarthy could not get the votes to become Speaker.

The GOP establishment is going have to look for a compromise candidate that they can live with and will satisfy their voters back home. Paul Ryan may be that man. We shall see.
 

Our own MRO provides a weak-end update in a great big pile in which he hides this pony:

"What is going on right now is essentially a civil war between the voters and the GOP and Democrat party establishments."

Majority Leader Kevin from Heaven McCarthy is no dummy about an apparent "Affair to Remember." To his credit he kept it within the GOP family.

Then our own MRO proclaims: "Polls are meaningless sentiment without action, though." So in accordance with protocol at this Blog:

"Cue to BB!"
 

These poll numbers are GREAT news for John McCain!!!!
 

I think that Rep. Paul Ryan will continue to decline to be the Speaker. My reasoning is that he got the bug in 2012 as the Mittster's VP. But he was smart enough for 2016 not to get into the GOP Clown Limo. Rather, he may have his fingers crossed that at the GOP convention there may be such turmoil that none of the Clowns will be supported. While the Mittster might be available, perhaps the younger Ryan would be considered a better choice. But if Ryan were to accept the Speaker gig, the dysfunction turmoil would not be conducive for such a convention scenario. Perhaps it will be written that "Ryan Shrugged" on the Speaker gig. But with weekends with his kids, he would be fresh if called upon at the convention. Query: Has a Speaker (including an ex-Speaker) ever been elected President?
 

Shag:

Ryan already holds the most powerful position in the House by chairing ways and means. He has every reason to decline the speakership. However, if enough of his colleagues plead with him to run...

We shall see.
 

But I think that the young Ryan weighs the means to rise to a higher level than Speaker. The position of Speaker has in recent (very, very recent) years proved to be a dead-end. I'm hoping the GOP convention comes up with this a-Paul-ing ticket for 2016:

"Paul R-AYN/RAND Paul 2016"

(or vice versa). I can hear libertarians shrugging in unison.
 

Paul Krugman's NYTimes Blog has a post today "Paul Ryan, Centrist Crush" that provides details on what I have said here. This Paul is not a-Paul-ing.
 

Krugman is in full MSNBC mode.

Most of that "crazy" GOP caucus wants to return the government to where it was in say 2006.

The really crazy ones want to retun it to 2000 when Bill Clinton was in office.

Utterly insane!
 

Our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless one) neglected to provide the description of himself:

"The really, really, really crazy ones want to return to The Gilded Age, America's best days."
 

The Sunday political shows picked up on our own MRO's "civil war" regarding the brouhaha in the House Speaker turmoil but highlighted that it's a "Republican Civil War." Karl Rove described it as an internecine battle. Democrats are on the sidelines. And libertarians are still shrugging.
 

CSPAN continues its history shows on the actual Civil War, today including a segment on the South dealing with defeat. Huh.
 

Shag: it's a "Republican Civil War."

You are correct. This is entirely a Tea Party rebellion.

The Democrat base are "feeling the Bern" to break from their corrupt establishment, but in the end they are lemmings and will support whoever the Party chooses for them.



 

Is this "Republican Civil War" the rebellion that our own MRO warned of on an earlier thread at this Blog when he was in his Chicken Little "The Sky Is Falling" mode blaming the Court? Frankly, it's just a Tempest in a Tea (or piss) Pot and the Tea Partiers can't take the heat (although they probably carry heat for this purpose as that's what their 2nd A is for). (I 'll have to check back on an earlier post/posts by Sandy where our MRO went through the gamut of his modes.)

Note to libertarians: If Ryan becomes Speaker, should he take his oath on Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged"?
 

I'm seeing hints of a movement for "Saving Rep. Ryan" from committing a Speaker run, saving him for bigger and better things. Does "Atlas Shrugged" have any suggestions on what he should do?
 

I was so amazed with the article, it was incredible, I loved it. sorry if I deviated, I want to share health articles, money may be useful as the following articles: obat ckd obat liper obat alergi kulit bertahun-tahun or perhaps the next article, pengobatan alternatif kanker selain kemoterapi obat herbal kurap di kulit kepala May I share articles, it may be useful to other people. obat lipoma untuk benjolan di leher cara menghilangkan jerawat batu May I share articles, it may be useful to other people. obat kelenjar getah bening untuk benjolan di leher, ketiak dan di belekang telinga
 

After the commercial break, consider David Brooks' NYTimes column today on the state of the Republican Party and conservatism. Imagine if more conservative pundits actually got real. Can Will and Krauthammer be next? I noted today a NYTimes article that Ryan is considered too left for the Freedom Kakas whose goal seems to be anarchy.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Shag:

David Brooks is a classically conservative (slow incremental change) progressive. The only place David Brooks would be considered a conservative as that term is known today would be in the NYT op-ed section when compared to Paul Krugman. Brooks' politics are barely distinguishable from his progressive Democrat NPR colleague E.J. Dionne.

I posted my response to Mr. Brooks at the NYT comments section.
 

I assume that our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless One) took Brooks' column personally as one of the most ardent followers of the Freedom Kakas (or is it KuKus?). Perhaps Our own MRO is unaware of Paul Krugman's frequent criticism of Brooks - by name! - at his NYTimes Blog. I suspect that our own MRO is leaning anarchy, feeling secure with his Glock in his jock. I don't know how extensive the comments are at the NYTimes comment section, but in separating the wheat from the chaff, surely our own MRO's comment is in the latter batch. With all of the stalking undertaken by our own MRO, one may wonder how he has time to maintain his law practice and more importantly abide by the oath he took as an attorney having something to do with the Constitution.
 

Mostly off topic but perhaps of interest to Shag:

http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/with-friends-like-these-gun-rights-advocates-game-the-amicus-brief-system

final link cites another article -- http://fordhamlawreview.org/articles/originalism-as-thin-description-an-interdisciplinary-critique


 

Shag:

The intramural squabbling between progressives over who is more ideologically pure is of no interest to me.

If you do not believe that Brooks is a progressive, name me one progressive program Brooks would end. Just one.

Brooks spent your linked op-ed bemoaning efforts to reverse progressive misgovernance as non-conservative.
 

Sure enough, Paul Krugman at his NYTimes blog posts "Everett Dirkson Doesn't Live Here Anymore" references Brooks' column focusing on Brooks' definition of conservatism in contract with that of another who relates it to power. As of this comment of mine, Krugman's comment has attracted 60+ comments and Brooks' over 1,600 comments. I haven't gone through any of these comments as I am still LOL. Our own MRO desperately tries to paint Brooks as a progressive as if success at doing so would remove our own MRO from the cast of the really, really crazies.

Personally, I have no fondness for Brooks as he has been bending like a pretzel until today to avoid negative comments about conservatives and Republicans (no I am not being redundant, as there are distinctions). If his college years in the midwest, Brooks was liberally inclined and a product of his came to the attention of Bill Buckley, who recognized in Brooks potential trouble for Buckley's conservative cause. So Buckley offered him a job, and the offer was accepted. Amazingly Brooks quickly changed from liber orientation to conservative. We used to call that sucking up to the boss. In any event, Bill Buckley's conservatism was not as crazy as the current Tea Party. Recal how Buckley spurned the John Birch Society and other crazies back then. Perhaps the diet that the crazies have been providing has given Brooks heartburn. Rather than shoot the messenger as our own MRO attempts with his feeble Glock in his jock, let's give Brooks room to ponder the comments to his column. But if Brooks is a progressive as our own MRO proclaims, then our own MRO is a card-carrying ACLU member.

But seriously, .... NAH, this is too much fun. Maybe I'll get serious after checking Joe's links.
 

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], as a Geezer (DOM in training), I am familiar with Everett Dirksen. Those who are not might Google "Everett Dirksen and the 1964 Civil Rights Acts". Dirksen was a conservative's conservative. But he understood the need to govern and the national interest.
 

Shag:

Unsurprisingly, you could not offer a single progressive policy which Brooks would reverse. Not one.

Brooks is a progressive.
 

Our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless One) perhaps has no idea how many NYTimes columns, and elwhere during the time Bill Buckley took him under his wing and converted him. While I am retired (although I still got my ticket), I do have a life outside of the Internet; perhaps I am not as skilled at multi-tasking as is our own MRO what with his highly in demand legal skills as the leading DUI attorney in his CO mountaintop community, and maintaining his own blog and stalking this and other blogs with his claims of The Gilded Age as America's best days and his other revisionist histories. Mind, I'm not claiming Brooks is a progressive; he's far from it. It's just of late that he has been flustered with the crazies infesting the conservative movement and the Republican Party. Perhaps if our MRO identified some progressive policies, I could Google research regarding Brooks' views. We know that during the Bush/Cheney 8 years, Brooks was in lockstep (as was our own MRO) with that Administration. Now, what progressive policies did Bush/Cheney support?

As a guess, a review of a pile of Brooks' columns possibly might turn up a pony with his actually favoring a clear progressive policy.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], check out Wikipedian on David Brook (Journalist) regarding some of the "progressive " places he has worked. Here's the link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brooks_%28journalist%29

Some interesting tidbits are included, such as Bill Buckley wanting Brooks to succeed him, but the latter being Jewish apparently would have been an issue back then.

So what's clear is that when our own MRO does not agree with someone, he attacks the latter as a "progressive." Those 2nd hand DUI fumes can distort the brain. But that doesn't stop his trolling. Let me repeat from my earlier comment:

"But if Brooks is a progressive as our own MRO proclaims, then our own MRO is a card-carrying ACLU member."

In the tone of the Capital One commercial, "MRO, what's in your wallet?"
 

Shag:

Still nothing.
 

Our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless One) would find it difficult to challenge the general view that David Brooks is a conservative. Just check out Brooks' work history, the publication and positions he held. It is as a result of David Brooks' column today in the NYTimes that our own MRO pejoratively refers to Brooks as a "progressive." My following of Brooks over the years does not suggest to me that he is a progressive in the sense that I am proud to be. The burden is upon our own MRO who is making the claim that Brooks is a "progressive" to overcome Brooks' long, recognized history as a conservative. Our own MRO's effort to impose upon me a burden in this regard suggests his weakness in logic. Rather this is a cheap high school debate maneuver - I'm not here to debate him - although he's probably a great masterdebator. All I did was note Brooks' column today and our own MRO with his Glock in his jock went ballistic. Brooks had been in the doldrums following his taking the Bush/Cheney hook, line and sinker for 8 years (just as had our own MRO). Brooks has been focusing on sociology and other soft sciences for much too long. Perhaps it was tough for Brooks to defend the GOP antics starting from day one of Obama's Administration. He took a teaching gig probably in an attempt to be sane. But as in a mythical Middle Eastern Country, finally "The Fit Hit the Sham!" with the political doings of the Tea Party and its ilk. Let's wait and see how conservatives/Republicans other than the Tea party and its ilk digest and respond. Who knows, maybe Brooks will pull a Kevin McCarthy and attempt to walk back this column.

I haven't enjoyed Brooks' columns over the years. Why should I waste my time culling all those years of his columns to satisfy a troll such as our own MRO? Of course, our own MRO can Google as I suggested earlier in an effort to prove that Brooks has been a "progressive" all these years disguised as a conservative, apparently fooling Mr. Conservative, the late Bill Buckley.

But if Brooks' column today outs him as a "progressive," that's progress - and entertaining.

Now let's get serious about UT's exposure to campus carry and the alumna counter-attack #CocksnotGlocks efforts. (I recall a UT bell tower incident a few years ago that was chaotic, deadly and tragic.)
 

Shag:

Still nothing after another 1,500 words.
 

Our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless One) can count. Perhaps he should read the 1861 comments on David Brooks' column on "The Republicans' Incompetence Caucus," with many more words than 1,500 of mine. 1861 rings a bell. That was the year the Civil War started. Now we have a civil (actually uncivil) internecine war in the Republican Party (which has for several decades no longer been the Republican Party of Lincoln in 1861). Our own MRO fails to discuss the content of Brooks' "The Republicans' incompetence Caucus." Rather, he attacks Brooks, the messenger, as - horrors of horrors - a "progressive." Of course our own MRO walks in lockstep with the "Incompetence Caucus." So he feels personally singed by Brooks' column, especially after the humiliation of the 8 years of Bush/Cheney than ended with its 2007-8 Great Recession. What personal humiliation our own MRO has endured. I feel - and enjoy - his pain.

Apparently Brooks hasn't paid any attention to our own MRO's comment on Brooks' column buried in those 1861 comments there. So he dares me, a progressive from way back to the New Deal, to disprove his claim that Brooks is a "progressive." As I noted in an earlier comment, that is not my burden. Rather he should demonstrate, prove, his claim, which is contra to how Brooks is and has long been perceived as a conservative. (Has Brooks been a liberal/progressive plant in the conservative world starting with Bill Buckley, sort of a Manchurian Candidate?) Or is this a cry for help by our own MRO? Perhaps an intervention is in order. But I doubt we could get up a minyan.

Perhaps political scientists will pore over the 1861 comments to Brooks' column as a reflection of the "Incompetence Caucus." No doubt in my mind that Brooks' next book will be based upon this column and the comments.

Personally, I think David Brooks' namesake Mel Brooks should develop a screenplay in the nature of his "High Anxiety" to reflect the "Incompetence Caucus." Perhaps a minor role for our own MRO might relieve some of his pain.

Hey guys, I put the bait out there on #CocksnotGlocks. Not a nibble.
 

http://concealednation.org/2015/10/cocksnotglocks-is-now-a-thing-thanks-to-a-new-campus-carry-protest-in-texas/
 

Brooks calling for executive dictatorship: "It’s a good idea to be tolerant of executive branch power grabs and to give agencies flexibility."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/opinion/brooks-strengthen-the-presidency.html?_r=0

Brooks pitching the old Democrat scam of tax increases now in exchange for a reduction of the budget increase in the future.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html

Brooks pitching Obamacare as a way to save money.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/opinion/23brooks1.html?mtrref=undefined&gwh=5D08652BB6FF46CAAB40B319951ACD5F&gwt=pay&assetType=opinion

Brooks chiding Obama for not making the moral case for the Obamacare individual mandate: "Most telling, the administration hasn’t even made a moral argument for the mandates. It hasn’t even tried to make the case that coercing some people to participate in collective action is necessary for the common good."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/24/opinion/brooks-the-legitimacy-problem.html

Brooks assuring us that Obamacare has achieved "credibility" because the government paid a few million to buy the new government designed health insurance.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2014/03/29/david-brooks-obamacare-has-achieved-credibility/

Progressive.


 

Blankshot, Obamacare is a Republican idea.
 

I started to scan through the 1861 comments on Brooks' column and most were favorable to Brooks. I thought I might note our own MRO's "needler in a haystack" comment but gave up after a couple of hundred seriatim scans. Maybe Brooks is now a "progressive." Recall St. Ronnie Reagan's GE days with "progress is our most important product." So if indeed Brooks has switched, welcome, we have a big tent. It's not too late to progress into the 21st century, even for those with the 19th century "The Gilded Age" as America's best days mentality of our own MRO.

Regarding @CocksnotGlocks I just saw a rerun of last night's The Nightly Show which has a feature on this topic. The new TX campus carry law comes into effect on the 50th anniversary of the UT bell tower slaughter in August of 2016. UT alumna plan to openly carry dildos that are illegal under TX law in protest. (To my knowledge dildos are not protected under the 2nd A. But maybe the 1st A.) Anyway, UT alumna armed with dildos may demonstrate that the 1st A trumps the 2nd A. Don't forget what actually happened at the Alamo.
 

Shag from Brookline said...I started to scan through the 1861 comments on Brooks' column and most were favorable to Brooks

The progressive Democrat readership of the NYT favoring Brooks's criticism of conservatives is hardly evidence that Brooks is a conservative.

You can't win this argument. You can only filibuster.
 

Our own MRO's obsession with his claim that David Brooks is a "progressive" brings to mind the late Patsy Clines' "Crazy," as it describes the Republicans' "Incompetence Caucus," still crazy after all these years (with apologies to Paul Simon). Brooks did not start the Republican (un)Civil War. It was the crazies. All Brooks did was point this out. Brooks provided a definition of conservatism. Perhaps our own MRO should challenge that definition with his own.

Meantime, who will be the next Mistah Speaker? Ryan apparently insists upon unanimity including the crazies. Can the crazies buy into that? Rather than focusing on Brooks, how will the Republicans in the House resolve their (un)Civil War? Or will anarchy reign? Would that be the best that conservatives, crazy and not-crazy, can come up with?
 

I'm not having an argument, I'm just having fun fili-busting our own MRO's chops.
 

You can't win this argument. You can only filibuster.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 11:34 AM

Arguing with you is a waste of time. Mocking you is time well spent.

 

Majority Leader Kevin from Heaven McCarthy is no dummy about an apparent "Affair to Remember.
meizu mx5 review
meizu m2 review
meizu mx5 price
 

Today I'm scheduled for the liberal lunch (some progressives) so I'll be hors d'combat until late afternoon. Meantime at:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-14/thomas-mann-and-norman-ornstein-on-republicans-gone-wild

checkout Francis Wilkinson's "Republicans Gone Wild: Q&A with Mann and Ornstein" for further discussion on the "Incompetence Caucus" upon my return from any port in a storm.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Shag:

It is amusing to hear your linked Democrat public intellectuals simultaneously whine that the voters are electing Republicans and then arguing that the Republicans are out of the mainstream.

The Democrats impose a trillion dollars a year in new spending, raise taxes, increase the federal government's debt (public and Social Security) above 100% of GDP, expand the corporate and individual welfare state, impose Obamacare direction of our health insurance and, in doing so, trash the economy. The GOP very specifically campaigns on reversing these polices. The voters fire several dozen Democrats from Congress (and over 1,000 at all levels of government) and lend it to the GOP. BUT the GOP is somehow "an insurgent outlier -- ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition."

"Of course, winning in midterms, with smaller and narrower electorates, does not make majority status."

Self delusion is a mental illness.

Between 2010-2014, the voters fired over 1,000 Democrats (the largest voter repudiation of a political party since they fired Hoover's Republicans between 1930-1932). This period covered three federal election cycles, one of them a presidential election, and multiple state off year elections.

The Democrats' problem is that a plurality to majority of voters oppose every single one of the policies I noted above.

Blaming GOP gerrymanders for Democrat election losses is pure fantasy. The first and largest election wave was in 2010, when the GOP took Democrat designed districts across formerly blue states. A gerrymander is a long and odd shaped district snaking across multiple areas of interest. The new GOP state governments did not create a single new gerrymandered district. Nearly all of the existing gerrymanders were ordered by the Justice Department to comply with their reading of the Voting Rights Act requiring majority minority districts to facilitate the election of minority representatives.
 

The Democrats' problem is that a plurality to majority of voters oppose every single one of the policies I noted above.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 11:37 AM

Are you talking about the same voters that elected Obama in the last 2 elections?
 

During the 2006 and 2008 elections, the Democrats and Obama comprehensively lied about every policy they imposed between 2009 and 2010.

Obama survived in 2012 by turning out his coalition in a minority of urban House districts and depressing turnout by demonizing Romney as an evil plutocrat in the majority of House districts where he lost. This is why Obama won the White House while the Democrats could not reverse their 2010 congressional losses and lost more ground in the states.

Many of the Democrat policies I noted above were imposed AFTER the 2012 election and, in response, the voters finished cleaning house in 2014.
 

During the 2006 and 2008 elections, the Democrats and Obama comprehensively lied about every policy they imposed between 2009 and 2010.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 12:03 PM

Blankshot, I have never encountered anyone who lies as frequently and as shamelessly as you.
 

I would add that I have never encountered anyone as delusional as you, either.

These poll numbers are GREAT news for John McCain!!!!!
 

BB:

You are, of course, free to identify which of the polices I noted above about which the Democrats did not lie during the 2006 and 2008 campaigns.

BTW, if you ding me concerning a single comment I posted about a single poll in 2008, then you need to credit me when I predicted both the 2010 and 2014 wave elections months beforehand. ;^)
 

You are, of course, free to identify which of the polices I noted above about which the Democrats did not lie during the 2006 and 2008 campaigns.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 12:27 PM

Dumbfuck, you didn't even name any policies, never mind how the Democrats "lied" about them at any time.

As for your predictions in 2010 and 2014, so what? It's easy for you to get predictions right when your side wins, because that is what you predict all the fucking time. These poll numbers are GREAT news for John McCain!!!
 

BTW, if you ding me concerning a single comment I posted about a single poll in 2008
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 12:27 PM

BTW, I'm not "dinging" you for a single comment you posted in 2008. I'm mocking you for your ability to ignore the blindingly obvious failure of your views by playing up minor success points in the midst of a avalanche of failure.
 

BB:

If you reread the 2008 posts you keep citing, I merely noted what McCain had to do in order to win the election and made no prediction. He did not accomplish those things.
 

If you reread the 2008 posts you keep citing, I merely noted what McCain had to do in order to win the election and made no prediction. He did not accomplish those things.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 1:36 PM

You are lying. It was obvious from the polling that McCain was going to lose. You were desperately trying to prop up hope for a win with some exit poll that you found. You did the same thing in 2012 when it was obvious to everyone but you that Mittens was going to lose. Searching for trivial examples of hope in the midst of overwhelming failure is kinda your thing.
 

BB:

I did indeed apply historical models to predict that Romney would win in 2012 and I was wrong. 2012 was a most ahistoric election. No president has ever lost a heavy majority of house districts and still won re-election. What Team Obama accomplished was quite remarkable.

Dude, I have no problem admitting when I make an error and have no problem taking my preferred party to task for their transgressions.

These are not characteristics you, Shag and I share.
 

I did indeed apply historical models to predict that Romney would win in 2012 and I was wrong.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 2:34 PM

You applied historical models because the actual current polling all said that Mittens was going to lose. That's what you do. You ignore the overwhelming evidence that you're wrong and go desperately searching for something that supports what you really wish was true.

These are not characteristics you, Shag and I share.
 

While enjoying my glass of port after a lovely lunch on a bright and sunny day in Boston, little did I know of the storm brewing at Balkinization on my innocent reference to the Mann and Ornstein Q&A. Had I been aware of the resulting roiling seas and ballistic bombast, why, I would have had a second glass of port. But that's my loss for not having a smart phone. In any event, our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless One) seems to be having a major Viagra side effect, calling for professional intervention.
 

Dude, I have no problem admitting when I make an error and have no problem taking my preferred party to task for their transgressions.

These are not characteristics you, Shag and I share.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 2:34 PM

Dude, you defended Cheney/Bush when they tortured people.

These are not characteristics you, Shag and I share.
 

At yesterday's lunch, a quasi-liberal luncher expressed the view that Hillary got the better of Bernie on capitalism. I had not watched the debate but had seen excerpts on that part of the debate and thought it was balanced between them. Bernie is a socialist democrat (or vice versa). Hillary stated she is a progressive, but accepts certain realities. Our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless one) uses progressive as a pejorative and often expresses his negative views about Europe's social democracies with great disdain.

Today's NYTimes features Timothy Egan's column "Guess Who Else Is a Socialist?" demonstrating that many Americans are, at least to some extent. This column is apparently a follow up to the Dems' debate. A reference is made in passing to the "free market," which has socialist features that even subsidize the wealthy.

I mention this not to provide another potential shock to our own MRO but merely to point out to him that America cannot return to the 19th century's The Gilded Age. Egan provides some polling stats demonstrating his point that many Americans are socialist as to certain things. [NOTE: THIS IS NOT A CUE TO BB.] Trump calls Bernie a "communist;" but Egan points out Trump's views on government takings that benefit private developments.

But more to the point of Gerard's three consecutive posts on the internecine Republican civil war that David Brooks blames on the GOP's "incompetence Caucus," governing is impacted with political dysfunction resulting. Republicans should get their act together for meaningful debates with Democrats in the 2016 elections.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], my next read is a review in today's NYTimes of "The Last of the President's Men" by Bob Woodward. Republicans squabbling today should keep in mind Nixon and Watergate in the early 1970s and Gingrich's failings in the late 1990s, and their impact on the Republican Party (not to mention the miserable 8 years of Bush/Cheney).
 

Bernie, who went so far as to honeymoon in the USSR, while the gulags were still in business, is scarcely just a "socialist", unless by "socialist" you mean "communist smart enough not to call himself that". Which I guess is what a lot of people mean when they call themselves "socialsts".

I've been wondering all along whether Hillary really means to try to get elected, (That pardon power could be personally a life saver, as well as renumerative.) or just appreciates the opportunity to divert some of the campaign cash flow into her own pockets. Declaring war on the 5 million member NRA suggests to me that the answer is indeed that she's just in it for the money. While it might help her in the battle for the nomination, it's going to be political suicide in the general election. Democrats figured out that was an issue they had to lie about back when it cost Gore the Presidency.

Mind, I suppose there could be truth to the rumors that she's starting to suffer dementia, and she just doesn't realize she killed her chances in the general election.
 

Sounds like Brett is starting the rumors. And Brett's reference to Hillary's "political suicide" re: the NRA isn't very nuanced coming from a self-proclaimed anaarcho libertarian and 2nd A absolutist. Brett may be busy maintaining his arsenal to defend against the "dildos revolution" supported by the 1st A (despite Gene V's take at the VC).
 

Here's a link to Corey Robin's dissection of David Brooks' column that our own MRO might take a gander at (with me goosing him along):

http://coreyrobin.com/2015/10/14/youve-changed-youre-not-the-angel-i-once-knew-david-brooks-on-the-gop/
 

Shag:

Mr. Robin is correctly noting one of the errors of Brook's op-ed, but does not appear to have a good grasp on the modern history of the terms "conservative" and "liberal." I re-posted my response to Mr. Robin below:

Brooks is offering the definition of classical conservatism (government enforcement of tradition and incremental change), as opposed to classical liberalism (limited government and individual freedom).

FDR turned these definitions on their head by adopting the term liberal to describe his decidedly illiberal progressive political economy.

Eventually, the critics of the New Deal adopted an opposite term and ideology, calling themselves conservatives, but advocating classically liberal free markets.

Both the Democrat and GOP establishments are fully invested in our progressive political economy, the Democrats somewhat more so than the GOP.

Brooks is part of this progressive GOP establishment and his idea of conservatism is expanding the progressive government at a slower, more incremental rate than the Democrats desire.

Voters started electing conservative free marketeers beginning with Reagan and the GOP is currently in civil war between its progressive establishment and its conservative free market voters and elected representatives.
 

Our own MRO "Macro 'Rhoidless One) omits from his comment to Mr. Robin the change in the base of the Republican Party relied upon by Richard M. Nixon with his Southern Strategy in the 1968 campaign with the shift of Democrats in the former slave states to becoming the base of the Republican Party. Saint Ronnie Reagan also utilized this strategy and even George H.W. Bush in the 1988 campaign relied upon his campaign manager Lee Atwater with a limited Southern Strategy (for which Atwater apologized on his deathbed). Back to Reagan, he was part of what our MRO describes as part of the Republican "progressive establishment." So was George H.W. Bush, and presumably his son George W. Bush. Just who are these voters our own MRO describes as the Republican "conservative free market voters? The latter are the tail attempting to wag the elephant. But what real leverage do they have? Clearly our own MRO puts himself in the category of such voters. What are they seeking? An actual revolution? Anarchy? Soon the 15 GOP candidates will start to thin out and then have to pay attention to this Republican (un)civil war. Right now the candidates are entertaining. Who will be the last Clown standing?

Now, our own MRO thinks he has " ... a good grasp on the modern history of the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal,'" in contrast to Mr. Robin. Perhaps Mr. Robin is not aware of our own MRO's mis-history abundantly spewed at this Blog. If Mr. Robin deigns to take our own MRO seriously, he should be aware that our own MRO believes America's best days were in the 19th century's The Gilded Age. Our own MRO is deficient in modernity.

So again, is our own MRO pushing for an actual revolution or anarchy, or what? So far our own MRO and his so called Republican "conservative free market voters" are favoring Trump, Carson and Fiorina. There is a sense of hysteria such that the other more politically experienced candidates have to go to extremes to attract the attention of the media and Republican voters, taking positions that will not attract voters, especially with the changing demographics, in a general election. Eventually most of the Republican Party will recognize what an elephant can do to rid itself of those few wagging its tail. Just a few years back, Cantor, McCarthy and Ryan were the "Young Guns" of the "new" Republican Party. Only Ryan is standing presently. Will he or won't he? As for our own MRO and the minority of House members "tailing" the elephant, they're shooting blanks.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], our ownMRO in his current mode of modernity seems to be abandoning his once past conservative heroes going back to Burke. Those who read Mr. Robin's post should note our own MRO's former conservative heroes named in the post. Note that our own MRO in his comment to Mr. Robin fails to identify by name any individuals who constitute his current conservative modernity heroes.
 

Shag:

Where do you get this nonsense?

The modern conservative movement started with Goldwater in 1964 and went into the political wilderness until Reagan in 1976.

Nixon was a member of the progressive establishment and governed further to the left of any post-WWII president apart from Obama.

Reagan used to be a New Deal Democrat before he joined the Goldwater campaign. The Democrat movement to the political left left behind Reagan and the millions of white working class folks who would later make him president.

Reagan employed a 50 state strategy, not a Southern strategy, and took damn near all of them over two elections.

Reagan gave the establishment fits in 1976 when he almost defeated a sitting GOP president. They only jumped on the Reagan bandwagon when it became clear he would win the nomination in 1980.

The Reagan build the modern majority center right coalition of economic libertarians, social conservatives and anti-communists. The Tea Party movement is a grass roots resurrection of the economic libertarians and social conservatives, with a healthy dose of military families who would have been anti-communist if Reagan had not won the Cold War.

We are seeking to reverse progressive misgovernance and corruption and re-limit government.

There is nothing modern about progressivism and socialism. Rather, these totalitarian political economies are largely resurrections of past bureaucratic governments in China and Byzantium.
 

Our own MRO provides us with more mis-history and yawning. Now he suggests Reagan inspired the Tea Party, not explaining the gap in years from the end of Reagan's presidency in January 1989 and the grass roots - actually weeds - that surfaced during the early Obama years. How many tax increases did Reagan bring in over his 8 years? How much smaller did government grow during his 8 years? Add Iran-Contra to this and his faulty memory (something our MRO shares with Reagan). The Cold War was long over when the Tea Party came out dressed as Native Americans and dumped tea into Boston Harbor. And our own MRO inserts "resurrection" into the founding of the Tea Party. And where was that " ... healthy dose of military families ... " during the military fiascos of the Bush/Cheney Administration that ended with its 2007-8 Great Recession?

And a reminder, where and with what language did Reagan start his 1980 presidential campaign?

We know where our own MRO gets his nonsense - he makes it up, as usual.

Meantime, who will be Speaker after Bo(eh)ner? How will the Freedom Kukkas resolve this?

And our own MRO still doesn't respond whether he's looking for a revolution or just plain anarchy. (Perhaps he is silent because he recall the oath he took regarding the Constitution.)
 

Shag:

The Reagan coalition lost some of the white working class vote (Reagan Democrats) when Bush broke his promise and raised taxes, Perot drew some off with fear mongering about free trade, and Clinton very intentionally campaigned to the right. The Reagan Democrats returned in 1994 to fire the Democrat Congress and replace it with a GOP Congress for most of a decade. Then they left again in 2006 when the Democrats ran to the right of the increasingly spendthrift GOP Congress, and then in 2008 during a deep recession for Obama when he promised to cut spending and taxes and keep our health insurance. When the Democrats governed somewhere hard left in 2009 and 2010 and destroyed the "conservative Democrat" brand, the white working class and middle class vote turned hard against the Democrats, firing over 1,000 of them. A large plurality of this wave was the Tea Party movement.

Now to swat down more nonsense about Reagan.

Reagan lowered and raised tax rates and lowered or eliminated dozens of tax deductions. The net result was a dramatically lower effective income tax rate with only two tiers.

After increasing during Reagan's first term to pay for unemployment and to rebuild the military, federal spending fell as a percentage of GDP during his second term to about where it was before the recession. Because of the peace dividend from winning the Cold War and the Gingrich/Clinton lowering of the increase in entitlements, federal spending as a percentage of GDP fell another 2% over the next 12 years.

The military families like mine were serving during the Afghan and Iraq Wars.

in 1979, Reagan announced he was running for President in NYC.

http://www.4president.org/speeches/reagan1980announcement.htm

The Gipper gave a variation of what was known as "the Speech" he gave for Goldwater back in 1964 and continued to give as a campaign stump speech in 79 and 80.

I have no earthly idea who will become Speaker. Whoever it is, I hope they will rediscover the power of the purse.


 

These poll numbers are GREAT news for John McCain!!!!
 

As this thread heads into the Archives of this Blog, we have another example of the meltdown of our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless one) well documented in these Archives in his own words. Challenge his mis-history and he comes up with even more mis-history.

And speaking of the "power of the purse," UT Alumna will demonstrate this by opening their purses and openly carrying dildos on UT's campus as a counter-attack on those who deign toengage in campus carry under TX's new law.

As to this from our own MRO:

"The military families like mine were serving during the Afghan and Iraq Wars. "

it seems clear that our own MRO is doubling down on his lock-stepping with the Bush/Cheney 8 years of military blunders. (But wasn't our own MRO in Desert Storm in Iraq during the pere Bush Administration? Perhaps this suggests he will be all in for JEB!?)

And our own MRO fails to identify his current conservative heroes in this Republican internecine (un)civil war. And it's not clear as yet whether he wants an actual revolution or mere anarchy.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Shag:

The freest political economy is NOT anarchy, but rather one where the government limits itself to preventing people from harming one another. Under such a system, we are free from abridgments of our liberty from both government and our fellow citizens.

The progressive political economy allows both the government and our politically connected fellow citizens corruptly abusing the power of government to abridge our liberty.

Thus, the obvious solution for those who desire to live in a genuine Land of the Free, is to move as far as possible away from the latter and as close as possible towards the former. To varying degrees, this is what the Tea Party believes.

 

As our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless One) attempts to serve as the spokesperson for the Tea Party, check out this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan's_Neshoba_County_Fair_%22states'_rights%22_speech

on Saint Ronnie Reagan's "states' rights" speech in Ole Miss. without any mention of "civil rights." Note in this Wikipedia post a quote from David Brooks.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], our own MRO seems to mix his "latter" and "former," a confirmation he doesn't know his arse from his elbow.

Further by the Bybee, where does this "genuine Land of the Free" currently exist on this earth? Or does our own MRO expect the Tea Party will "reform" (re-form?) America by the dint of its craziness? Or is the Tea Party prepared to move to wherever?
 

Shag:

Reagan supported our Constitution's federalist devision of powers between the national and state governments. The Californian was hardly a confederate. I would suggest you watch the film "The Butler," the story of a man who served as White House butler under several presidents. Reagan was the president who ended the White House practice of paying its African American employees less than the whites.

"Further by the Bybee, where does this "genuine Land of the Free" currently exist on this earth?"

It does not exist any longer. The classical liberal flower of western civilization is gone. The US and EU are now totalitarian states with few if any limits on their governments. Most of our legal profession have long ago abandoned the rule of law.

The question is whether we can replant that flower garden?
 

Our own MRO's (Macro 'Rhoidless One) response:

"It ['genuine Land of the Free'] does not exist any longer."

may have some guessing as to when it ceased to exist. Surely it didn't exist from the Founding to the Civil War Amendments for the slaves, women, Native Americans, etc, a sizable portion of American's population. And even after the Civil War Amendments, there was Jim Crow and the inapplicability of said Amendments to provided equal rights to women, not to mention Native Americans. Perhaps our own MRO is thinking of the late 19th century' The Gilded Age that he still thinks were America's best days. As usual, our own MRO fails to provided a timeline. Was it until the New Deal? or until Brown v. Bd. of Educ. (1954? Or until Obama's inauguration in January of 2009? Or going by his proposed "cure" to "replant that flower garden", it's a reversion to the Garden of Eden pre-Original Sin?

But here's one of our own MRO's dumbest of all times "observations":

"Most of our legal profession have long ago abandoned the rule of law."

Perhaps the legal bar in his Mile High State (of mind) will consider an intervention.
 

Shag:

"It ['genuine Land of the Free'] does not exist any longer." may have some guessing as to when it ceased to exist.

The Constitution applied to women from the start.

No one, including Native Americans themselves, considered Native Americans to be part of the People. Americans were invaders to the Native Americans and Americans considered Native Americans to be foreign nations.

The major failing of our constitutional order until the Civil War amendments was Democrat slavery.

The major failing of our constitutional order after the Civil War amendments was allowing the Democrats to impose Jim Crow enforced by KKK terrorism.

The vast majority of the people enjoyed a Free Market Republic until the advent of populism and progressivism in the 1890s. during this first century, the United States grew from a bankrupt colonial backwater to the largest and most productive economy and the highest paid workers in the world, a feat without parallel in human history. Millions immigrated to the United States from our economic competitors, voting with their feet in favor of our Free Market Republic.

After the advent of populism and progressivism in the 1890s, the US started experiencing alternating periods of government expansion and economic slowdown, followed by partial liberalization's of the government and returned economic growth, but generally slower than before. The last period we enjoyed a Free Market Republic was the Roaring 20s. Hoover and FDR transitioned us to the current progressive political economy and caused the first progressive depression. We are now in the midst of our second progressive depression of the past century.

Every OECD nation, including now the United States, is at some stage of labor, economic and fiscal implosion. The United States has a falling percentage of its population in the labor force, stagnant productivity and GDP growth lower than during the Great Depression, and has increased federal government debt (public and Social Security) above 100% of GDP. The EU and Japan are in worse shape.

But here's one of our own MRO's dumbest of all times "observations": "Most of our legal profession have long ago abandoned the rule of law."

I offer as Exhibit 1 to my proposition the blawg Balkinization. Show me a single professor here who has not offered arguments in favor of ignoring the law as written and instead imposing their preferred policy by statute or increasingly by executive decree? Just one.

 

Again, our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless One) responds with mis-history. He apparently concedes that slaves did not enjoy the benefits of a "genuine Land of the Free" as they were not free (although they provided "free" labor for the slaveowners in the South. The Constitution may have applied to women from the start in particular regards but in many regards did not enjoy, as did white men of property, a "genuine Land of the Free." In particular, women did not have the vote. And the Civil War Amendments were interpreted/construed such that women did not have the right to vote. It took a further amendment of the Constitution, to wit, the 19th A ratified in 1920. But even the 19th A did not provide equal rights to women. (I'll not take the time to itemize other areas where women did not enjoy a "genuine Land of the Free" even to the present time.)

As to Native Americans, perhaps our own MRO should revisit the Constitution for its provisions concerning them and the history of how the Court from time to time misapplied the Constitution and deprived them of a "genuine Land of the Free."

As to Jim Crow, yes it did result from impositions of then Democrats primarily in the South. But the Democratic Party has changed over the years and the current Democratic Party is far beyond Jim Crow, especially starting with President Truman, followed by Brown v. Bd. of Educ. (1954) and the civil rights movement that followed into the mid 1960s with the Civil Rights Acts under LBJ that significantly - but not completely = undercut Jim Crow. And the Republican Party of Lincoln is no longer the Republican Party of today as the latter's base resulted from the Democrats from the former slave states switching to the Republican Party virtually en masse, continuing to this date its base.

While not categorically stated by our own MRO, it seems the Roaring 20s may be his timeline for when there ceased to be a "genuine Land of the Free." Politically, the Roaring 20s were dominated by the Republican Party., headed by Presidents Harding and Coolidge. Our own MRO blames not only FDR but also Hoover who succeeded Coolidge in 1929. Hoover was inaugurated in March of 1929. The famash "Crash" occurred some 7 months later. Surely the Roaring 20s of Republican control contributed to the "Crash," so it is hard to put the blame on Hoover. But Hoover had over 3 years left in his term to address the fallout from the "Crash," and failed; which became the Great Depression that Hoover left on the doorstep of Democrat FDR. (Jumping ahead to the 21st century, Bush/Cheney's 8 years ended with its 2007-8 Great Recession left on the doorstep of another Democrat, Barack Obama, the First African American - and still - President. It's amazing what damage the Republicans have wrought. Perhaps our own MRO can come up with a name for the Bush/Cheney 8 years in the fashion of the Roaring 20s? Any suggestions? The "OUGHTS NOT"?)

As for our own MRO's Exhibit 1 challenge regarding naming a professor at this Blog, I'll take that as an asinine rhetorical question. Once again our Own MRO demonstrates he is a NOAGN.*

*Nit On A Gnat's Nut
 

As for our own MRO's Exhibit 1 challenge regarding naming a professor at this Blog, I'll take that as an asinine rhetorical question.

Treat it as an informal survey of legal academia.

Brett and I are about the only ones here who actually apply the rule of law and he is not an attorney.
 

Perhaps our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless One) with his response my most recent comment may have been concerned with the possible application of an exception to the group libel rule.

In any event, a broad brush treatment of legal academia most likely would be just a big smear of paint. This too is asinine. Of course our own MRO is free to provide his own survey answer. I choose not.

Perhaps Brett is comfortable with our own MRO's observation lumping the two of them - or not. As noted in several comments in this and other threads at this Blog, both of them often provide Humpty-Dumpty versions of the rule of law. Brett can be excused as he is not an attorney.

But here's what our own MRO originally charged:

"Most of our legal profession have long ago abandoned the rule of law."

When challenged with its absurdity, he then came up with his Exhibit !. Then when similarly challenged, he came up with:

"Treat it as an informal survey of legal academia."

But there is much more to the legal profession that legal academia, e.g., the many attorneys in private practice. What all this demonstrates is not just hyperbole but also paranoia, not to mention animus towards legal academia.

And all this flowed after noting David Brooks' NYTimes column on the current state of the Republican Party as evidenced by what's been happening - or not happening - in the House regarding the position of Speaker. Damning the legal profession will not resolve the Republican (un)civil revolution.

 

Shag:

The rule of law is following the law as it is written.

The rule of men is when the executive and judiciary ignore or rewrite the law as it is written in order to impose their own policy preferences.

Progressive attorneys and progressives in general almost completely favor the latter unless the written law happens to enforce a policy they favor.

Wether you spin it as "living originalism," "purposivism" or some other pseudo-scientific sounding name, it all boils down to the rule of men.
 

Our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless One) posits:

"The rule of law is following the law as it is written."

I assume he is referring to the Constitution and statutory law. But there is certain law that was "written" by judges in the old days of the common law. While the common law was written in decisions of judges over the years, there were many variations heres in America, what with federalism. But getting back to my assumption, judges, justices in our judicial systems make decision on the application of the rule of law, first determining what is the rule of law and how it is to be interpreted/construed. For many years, judges, justices were comprised of men, some elected in certain states and many appointed by an executive in many states, with federal judges and justices appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Now we have women judges and justices as well. So it is these men and women in such roles of judges, justices who make decisions. Appeals processes are provided for and sometime a decision of a judge or an intermediate appellate court is overturned by a higher appellate court. Sometimes earlier decisions of even the highest appellate court (e.g., SCOTUS) are overturned usually by a change in court personnel. Over the 2+ centuries of the American judicial systems, judges, justices (first only men, now including women) have disagreed on the application of and what the rule of law is in a given case. There is not as yet a non-human objective manner for determining and applying the rule of law, whatever it is. The judiciary is made up of men and women. Executives at the federal and state levels are made up of men and women. Legislatures at the federal and state levels are made up of men and women. (All of these officials are in various way involved with the rule of law.) And let's go all the way back to the Garden of Eden where there were certain rules for Adam, the first man, and Eve, the first woman (after Adam took a ribbing) to follow, obey, and then came their Original Sin. So let's face it, there have been disputes over the rule of law from the beginning (6,000 years ago). Men and (now) women in official roles make determinations as to the rule of law. America is a nation of laws, not of men and women. But men and women are involved in official positions (judges, justices, etc) in determining and applying the rule of law, as they understand it in a given case. And while a law may be written, it is not always clear what it means, how it is to be interpreted or construed. Is this situation which has existed for 2+ centuries in America spinning? It doesn't take much research to confirm all this (except for the Garden of Eden with its snake in the grass). If the rule of law were that clear and not in dispute, we wouldn't need the number of lawyers, law schools and legal academia we have today. And in particular, the Constitution has gone through quite a bit in those 2+ centuries. Some have suggested that perhaps SCOTUS' decision in 1857 in Dred Scott contributed a tad to 600,000 deaths during the Civil War.

Recall Donald Rumsfeld's:

"As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

Apply this to the Constitution we got and the judicial system that interprets/construes it with judges, justices made up of men and women.

It's getting near bedtime for me and a little later for our own MRO. I plan to sleep soundly while I suspect our own MRO will tuck his Glock in his jock and look under his bed for progressive attorneys and progressives in general. But he has more to fea from bedbugs, smoking in bed or his Glock. Pleasant dreams.

 

Shag:

There is not as yet a non-human objective manner for determining and applying the rule of law, whatever it is.

Bulls_t.

Words have meanings and grammar has rules.

Humanity has been applying the law as it is written since Hammurabi.
 

Our own MRO's (Macro 'Rhoidless One):

"Humanity has been applying the law as it is written since Hammurabi."

suggests that "humanity" has done this well - up until the time Obama was inaugurated? But let's look at the actual history over those many years, especially the last 2+ centuries under the Constitution. Yes, words have meanings and grammar has rules. But humanity determines and applies those meanings and rules, with much disagreement over the past 2+ centuries under the Constitution. Humanity is not prefect [sic].

 

Shag:

Obama and his bureaucracy are just the latest in a long line of emperors, kings, dictators, warlords and bureaucracies through history who rewrite or ignore the law and rule by decree.

The problem is not with our inability to objectively apply the meaning of our language, but rather with the power hunger and corruption of those tasked with applying and enforcing that language.

A fourth grader could have applied the law as written in the Burwell and Arizona State Legislature cases.
 

I'll concede that our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless One) has a lot in common with fourth graders and their knowledge of and experience with the rule of law.
 

As this thread heads for the sunset in the Archives of this Blog, perhaps to be included in occasional research by legal history - or hysterics? - scholars in the decades, nay centuries, to come, it should be pointed out that the Constitution we have imposes certain age minimums on men - and now women - who may serve as Representatives, Senators and Presidents, but without any age limitations on the appointment of Justices to the Supreme Court (nor any requirement that a Justice or judge actually be trained in the law). Thus, a President Trump or some other President who shares our own MRO's "sentiments" on the abilities of fourth graders to understand the meanings in the Constitution so as to be able to readily interpret and construe it, could technically nominate such a fourth grader to serve as a Justice. What might the advice and consent of the Senate be on such a move? But the Constitutional would not specifically prohibit such a nomination by a President. But legal academics would surely find a way to interpret/construe the Constitution otherwise - unless [drum roll] such legal academics were also fourth graders.
 

I'm reluctant to go back as far as Hammurabi but I just downloaded Jesus Fernandez-Villaverde' "Magna Carta, the Rule of Law, and the Limits on Government." A link to the paper and a short interesting quote are available at the Legal History Blog. While the paper is 37 pages long, it is double-spaced, so even with a hand-held magnifying glass it shouldn't be too taxing on my eyesight issues. Although I'm skipping Hammurabi, I understand American law has a closer connection to the Magna Carta than Hammurabi. [Query: Did Hammurabi have to deal with crazies like the House Republicans have to cater to today?]
 

Shag:

Query: Did Hammurabi have to deal with crazies like the House Republicans have to cater to today?

As someone who expected his written law to be followed, Hammurabi IS one of those "rule of law" crazies.
 

Check out Wikipedia on Hammerabi at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammurabi#Code_of_laws

Of course, Babylon was not a democracy. Were the laws handed down from God? There was apparently not a representative form of governance in old Babylon. Check out some of the laws and particularly severity of punishments. One could babble on about Hammurabi but not as an example for a democracy. By today's standards, the "Hammer" was crazy.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Shag:

The rule of law does not require a democracy, just neutrally applying the law as written.

The combination of a division of powers with a legislature making the law, and the rule of law with the executive and judiciary enforcing the law as written, is our Constitution's check on dictatorship.
 

So, I ask our own MRO, what does the history of dictators applying the rule of law neutrally look like? Without checks and balances, by presumably men and women, how is the dictator challenged as to having applied the rule of law neutrally? And overriding all this is having the rule of rule of law be fair and just. Maybe our own MRO has some particular ideal dictator in mind/
 

So now Blabkshot is promoting rule of law by an actual dictator? WTF?
 

Shag:

Let me try to understand your position.

The Supreme Court rubber stamping the IRS rewriting a democratically enacted statute is the rule of law, however, a monarch impartially applying the law is not?

This would be a surprise to the English.

As a side note, it is important to distinguish between a dictator and other executives because the former by definition possesses the power to rule by decree. Monarchs can be subject to the law, rule by decree or a combination of both depending upon the system.


 

The Supreme Court rubber stamping the IRS rewriting a democratically enacted statute is the rule of law, however, a monarch impartially applying the law is not?

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 8:57 AM

Blankshot, the Supreme Court is currently comprised of 5 members that were appointed by the opposition party. It seems unlikely that any of them would "rubber stamp" anything, unless your definition of "rubber stamp" is 'Waaaaaaaaah....sob...sob...sob...waaaaaaaaaaaah....me no like"
 

Progressives dominate the legal profession and place a great deal of institutional pressure on jurists who believe in the rule of law and original meaning jurisprudence to uphold the progressive political economy..

This is why Democrat judicial appointees are reliable progressive votes who rarely stray off the reservation, but Republican conservative appointees "evolve" toward a progressive position over time.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/supreme-court-justices-get-more-liberal-as-they-get-older/
 

Progressives dominate the legal profession and place a great deal of institutional pressure on jurists who believe in the rule of law and original meaning jurisprudence to uphold the progressive political economy..
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 11:38 AM

Blankshot, it's a well known fact that reality has a liberal bias. That is why the news media, teachers/professors, scientists, judges, the poors, African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Jews, Hollywood, Euroweenies, Canadians, Muslims and lawyers are all liberals.


 

As the bobbin on this thread approaches being spent and shunted into the Archives of this Blog, check out Wikipedia's "List of Monarchies" going way, way back that includes monarchies in various categories, available at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monarchies#Shared_monarchies

Today at the extremes we have the UK, a democracy, at one extreme and Saudi Arabia at the other.I have more confidence in the former properly applying the rule of law than the latter. In between there are different types of monarchies about which I know little. As I am monocular limited, I am not really interested in monarchies.
 

BB: it's a well known fact that reality has a liberal bias.

It is more accurate to say that Progressives attempt to rewrite reality to conform to their progressive bias.

Progressives are concentrated in an overwhelmingly white, upper middle to high income Credentialed Caste concentrated in the bureaucracy, academia, media and finance. The Germans call this caste Bildungsbergurtum and their sociologists compare them to an aristocracy. David Brooks wrote about them in Bobos in Paradise and self-servingly (because he is one) calls them the "educated class." Rasmussen extensively polled them can calls them the "political class." The Credentialed Caste like to call themselves technocrats or wonks.
 

Shag:

The Founders and I agree with you that the rule of law is far easier to implement with an elected legislature writing the law and the executive and judiciary enforcing the law as written. However, nothing prevents an unelected executive from enforcing the law as written. See the King's prosecutors and courts enforcing the British constitution and the laws of Parliament for centuries. \

The difference between the rule of law and the rule of men is whether the executive and courts will enforce the law as written or as they would prefer the law to be.
 

It is more accurate to say that Progressives attempt to rewrite reality to conform to their progressive bias.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 3:30 PM

Says the nutcase currently trying to justify "rule of law" by dictators and pretending that waterboarding is not torture.
 

The difference between the rule of law and the rule of men is whether the executive and courts will enforce the law as written or as they would prefer the law to be.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 3:36 PM

Dumbfuck, in a dictatorship the rule of law as written and the rule of law as the dictator would prefer the law to be are the same fucking thing. Damn, you are stupid. How the hell do you avoid starving to death?
 

I'm reading Jesus Fernandez-Villaverde's "Magna Carta, the Rule of Law, and the Limits on Government." According to the author (page 6):

"But despite these older uses, the expression 'rule of law' only became widely popular after A. V. Dicey (1835-1922) postulated in his classic 1888 treatise, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, chapter IV, ... that:

...

'The second of these features, which is closely connected with the first, is the rule or supremacy of law.'"
 

Back to the subject at hand, Paul Ryan just threw his hat into the ring as a "unity" candidate for speaker. During an interview with Fox News, Boehner appeared to be confident Ryan had the votes and the current speaker would be headed home to Ohio shortly.

In a more interesting related development, Boehner also revealed that the GOP Congress would push through a 90% repeal of Obamacare through budget reconciliation over the next week so the Senate Dems could not filibuster it. The bill will get the Senate Dems on the record supporting Obamacare for the first time since 2010 and force Obama to veto it. I suspect that this is another establishment show vote and a subsequent budget bill will fully fund Obamacare, but it might have been enough to placate the libertarian/conservative back benchers into supporting Ryan.
 

H/T to our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless One) for providing a good description of the "Crazies" in the GOP House:

" ... the libertarian/conservative back benchers ...."

A nut by any other name is still crazy. "Unity"? = A completely crazy Republican House.

But more seriously, would this placate our own MRO?

Query: Is this really BREAKING NEWS! or merely our own MRO BREAKING WIND?


 

good blog. verry interesting. tahank for your post.. I ask if I considered spam I just want my articles can be useful to others, such as the following article coretan kerja thanks may be useful for all.
 

rak
rak
rak
rak
rak
rak
rak
rak
rak
rak
rak
rak
rak
rak
rak
rak
rak
rak
rak
rak
rak
rak
rak
rak
rak
rak
rak
rak
rak
rak
rak
rak
rak

 

Thanks for the info, maybe I can use this ended my tufted marketing and I've been use untold anulus media in run a interaction and they someone existing a big amend on me.
Pbsbo
Pbsbo.com
www.pbsbo.com
Pbsbo
Pbsbo.com
 

longchamp outlet, burberry handbags, uggs on sale, jordan shoes, longchamp outlet, louis vuitton outlet, cheap oakley sunglasses, louis vuitton, christian louboutin shoes, michael kors outlet online, ray ban sunglasses, longchamp outlet, polo outlet, nike outlet, polo ralph lauren outlet online, uggs outlet, tory burch outlet, oakley sunglasses, michael kors outlet online, oakley sunglasses wholesale, louis vuitton outlet, nike air max, ray ban sunglasses, michael kors outlet, nike free, michael kors outlet online, christian louboutin outlet, tiffany and co, prada outlet, gucci handbags, oakley sunglasses, oakley sunglasses, nike air max, replica watches, michael kors outlet online, ugg boots, tiffany jewelry, ugg boots, louis vuitton outlet, prada handbags, christian louboutin, louis vuitton, ray ban sunglasses, uggs outlet, michael kors outlet
 

timberland pas cher, nike roshe run uk, true religion outlet, oakley pas cher, jordan pas cher, burberry pas cher, michael kors, ray ban pas cher, lululemon canada, replica handbags, michael kors pas cher, sac hermes, ralph lauren uk, nike free run, air max, nike blazer pas cher, north face, nike roshe, coach outlet store online, hollister uk, longchamp pas cher, coach purses, north face uk, true religion outlet, kate spade, nike air max uk, guess pas cher, polo lacoste, sac vanessa bruno, new balance, ray ban uk, michael kors, nike free uk, true religion outlet, hollister pas cher, vans pas cher, hogan outlet, polo ralph lauren, true religion jeans, converse pas cher, nike air max uk, sac longchamp pas cher, louboutin pas cher, mulberry uk, michael kors outlet, abercrombie and fitch uk, coach outlet, nike tn, nike air force, nike air max