Balkinization  

Friday, August 07, 2015

Constitutional "moments"

Sandy Levinson

There may be less difference between Jack and me that might first appear.  One problem, perhaps, is my use of the term "constitutional moment."  It might suggest some kind of radical step function, but I agree with Jack that it's not that.  The mechanisms of the Iran Deal dramatize the very long-term accretion of presidential power that Steve Griffin and Mariah Zeisburg, among others, have written about.  Bruce Ackerman has emphasized the importance of shifting from formal treaties to "executive agreements" as mechanisms of foreign policy, though, of course, as with NAFTA or the perhaps forthcoming trade agreement, there's still a necessity for congressional approval, albeit fast-tracked.  Here, as Jack notes, Congress agreed in effect to waive any approval rights by setting the Iran Deal up so that the President could prevail so long as he was able to maintain 1/3+1 support in either the House or Senate (or could, by virtue of the support of 41 senators, prevent the matter from ever coming to a vote in the Senate at all).  Why did Republicans agree to this?  The most cynical explanation (which I find often works where congressional Republicans are concerned) is that they wanted to take a "free pass" on Iran:  This way they can beat up on Obama by claiming they would have been tougher negotiators, etc., not to mention their long-term efforts to attract more Jewish support (and money), without in fact having to take responsibility for torpedoing a deal and increasing the odds of yet another unfortunate Middle Eastern war.

But this depended on the premise that Democrats would in effect behave like Republicans, i.e., remain cohesive, especially considering that it's their current President and 2004 candidate who negotiated the deal, with the apparent approval of their presumptive next candidate, Hillary Clinton.  It's still worth noting that an important agreement (whatever we call it, and I'm not at all sure that it matters all that much what the nomenclature is, though lawyers obviously insist that nomenclature matters) will be made without the notional support of a majority even of one house of Congress, which is further development toward executive authority.  But this model depends on everyone playing his/her assigned role.  Republicans are entitled to sound like mad dogs, while Democrats rally around their President.  Perhaps it'll still work out that way.  Chuck Schumer is hard to take seriously as a serious thinker, rather than political tactician, and it is hard to ignore his obvious motives to desert Obama.  Recall Tip O'Neill's comment that "all politics are local," coupled with Jesse Unruh on money being the mother's milk of politics. 

But what if Schumer leads another dozen or so Democratic senators to desert Obama, and what if the apparent lock on upholding a veto disappears in the House?  They we have the phenomenon that I am describing, which would take us back at least to Versailles:  The repudiation of the major foreign policy decision by a sitting President, which could be defended if and only if one is prepared to say that one simply doesn't trust his and his Administration's judgment on an issue that is linked to matters of life and death.  I think this is the very definition of "no confidence" as an empirical, albeit not a "legal," notion.

Such a repudiation wouldn't count as a "constitutional moment."  That I certainly agree with.  Where Jack and I probably do disagree is whether it would wreck the remainder of the Obama presidency (and the presumptive campaign of Hillary Clinton).  I think the answer is yes.  I think this would be equivalent of the failure to ratify Versailles (or, perhaps, to have rejected Lend-Lease in 1940).  The Wilson presidency would have been wrecked even had he not suffered his stroke.  And if it goes down because of Democratic opposition, then what will Hillary do?  Will she bewail the defeat, because she agrees that it is in fact a good deal, all things considered in a world where the United States is no longer the Roman hegemon?  Or will she come out against it and run as the Democratic Lindsay Graham?  Either way, her candidacy will suffer a grievous defeat, and the Democratic Party will be highly fractured.  (If it goes down, then I assume that Congress will vote, over Obama's veto, to raise military expenditures by cutting domestic expenditures, since mad-dog Republicans will never accept a tax increase.  Or are we supposed to think that our present military can fight an ever-increasing number of wars?)

And, incidentally, it is a perverse feature of bicameralism that it promotes strategic voting and, therefore, irresponsibility.  Just as House Republicans were encouraged to impeach Clinton in 1998 because they knew to a certainty that a sufficient number of Democrats would not vote to convict--it's inconceivable that Republicans really would have wanted a President Gore who could run as an incumbent in 2000--so Schumer and his ilk may well have merited confidence that Nancy Pelosi will save the Deal by solidifying the necessary 1/3+1.  So why should he rise above his narrow political interests and take a hit for the home team, when, thanks to bicameralism, the home team will win whatever he does?  Obviously, one has to assume that enough House Democrats, who might be under the same pressures, will decide to vote for the Deal.  One of the enduring realities of American politics is that members of the House generally detest senators, and I suspect that Schumer's grandstanding will reinforce this tendency.

(I leave open the possibility that Schumer really and truly believes that the Deal constitutes a genuine danger to the country.  In that case, he is under a duty to become the active leader of the opposition and solicit votes not only in the Senate, but also in the House.  In any event, I certainly hope that Dick Durbin will run against Schumer, who was also bad on the Affordable Care Act, for Democratic leader.)

Finally, as always, I'm struck by the devotion that Americans have to our constitutional system.  Increasingly, that is itself evidence of American exceptionalism inasmuch as few, if any, contemporary constitutional designers take the US Constitution as a model rather than a cautionary example. 

Comments:

Parliamentary systems has problems too and surely "strategic voting" is not absent.

This however is real curious:

The repudiation of the major foreign policy decision by a sitting President, which could be defended if and only if one is prepared to say that one simply doesn't trust his and his Administration's judgment on an issue that is linked to matters of life and death

Why could not simply be a substantive difference of opinion on proper policy, which is allowed in our system without "no confidence" votes occurring when it happens? Why must it be about "trust"? The use of the word btw reminds me of a new book by a former speechwriter of Mark Sanford:

A lot of them are decent people. Certainly they're industrious and hard-working. But are they good? I think we have to learn to admire politicians without ever trusting them. I'm guilty—I'm still guilty—of failing to strike that balance in my own thinking. Maybe we've given politicians too much power over our lives—expected them to solve unsolvable problems. That's a form of trust. But trustworthy people don't beg you to trust them; they don't spend truckloads of money in an effort to persuade people to trust them. They just don't.

http://www.gq.com/story/political-speechwriter-confessions

Anyway, I think the general public is aware of the flaws of our system, but accepts it as a whole. Each system has flaws. It is true we have the usual rah rah U.S. has a perfect system stuff, but especially these days, there seems a healthy realism as a whole deep down out there.
 

I generally agree with others that your take on this is over the top. First, Schumer is posturing here. That's disreputable for him (and I'd deny him the Maj Leader role as punishment), but it's not of any significance otherwise. Second, I think the comments below make a convincing case that, in the US context, the treaty issue lacks the significance you attribute to it and which it might have in a Parliamentary system.
 

The remainder of Obama's term in office is a wreck, regardless. The opposition party has majorities in both chambers of the legislature, holds most of the state legislatures and governorships. Obama's coattails have ranged from short to negative.

The only reason he isn't an utter lame duck is that he doesn't feel particularly bound by the law, and so not having the legislature on his side isn't impeding him much.
 

Check out Jack Balkin's 3/3/15 post "The Last Days of Disco: Why the American Political System is Dysfunctional" which is the title of his essay that can be linked; read the abstract, but better yet read the essay. The post is available at:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-last-days-of-disco-why-ame

Compare this with Sandy's critique of the Constitution as the blame for political dysfunction and his preference for some parliamentary system. Also consider that Sandy has extensively discussed nullification and secession as potential responses to political dysfunction. I think the differences between Sandy and Jack are more significant than Sandy indicates. In my lifetime (which is only slightly longer than Sandy's) there have been major political cycles, which we have survived, including especially Nixon/Agnew/Watergate (no need to mention Bush/Cheney 8 years as much closer in time). Let's keep things in perspective. The sky is not falling, although political dysfunction may be heating up with the 2016 presidential election cycle with Donald T-RUMP leading the GOP pack.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], I have put up my final - for now - T-RUMP doggerel at Gerard's thread before it vanishes into the archives of this Blog.
 

Pres. Obama as a lame duck can still execute laws, including via executive orders pursuant to enacted legislation. But the Republican controlled Congress is a rather lame albatross when it comes to legislating. So I'll take that lame duck with sauce l'orange while Brett can enjoy his lame albatross sauced with red-neck gravy.

And speaking of Brett's charge that Obama " ... doesn't feel particularly bound by the law ... " suggests Brett will be continuing with his impeachment screed from Sandy's prior thread. By way of perspective, Brett overlooked the Bush/Cheney 8 years of lies and damned lies that cost lives, limbs and fisc without a suggestion of impeachment.
 

Shag's perspective point -- and Sandy Levinson lived thru most of that too (and from a Southern perspective to boot) -- is on point. Prof. Levinson has various things to depressed about, but not sure about his Cassandra routine.

Anyway, a bit of nostalgia -- Prof. GM on Concurring Opinions Blog cites Richard Nixon's oral argument in Time v. Hill, accessible at Oyez.com.
 

I think the "Cassandra routine" might be due to the realization that the changes he'd like to see to the Constitution aren't going to happen, not because of structural obstacles, but because they're not popular. He despises a constitution he views as at best broken, and too many people like that constitution. Indeed, if it were changed in ways the public would agree to, it might end up worse from his perspective.

It's a depressing realization that the views one considers self-evident are not popular, that your arguments have been advanced and rejected. I've had those moments myself.
 

The repudiation of the major foreign policy decision by a sitting President, which could be defended if and only if one is prepared to say that one simply doesn't trust his and his Administration's judgment on an issue that is linked to matters of life and death.

Or maybe because Mr. Obama's surrender to Iran only musters a bit over 25% support in polling.

A rather substantial number of Democrats are going to have to act against the wishes of their constituents (again) to sustain an Obama veto.
 

Sandy Levinson does dislike various aspects of the Constitution, including more than one there since the Founding, though unlike some, he doesn't as a whole think it is being applied wrongly. (I'm sure he does as we all do in individual cases).

He accepts as a whole in such discussions the application is "legitimate" so to speak but that only underlines in his view the need to change it. Brett often feels the Constitution is being applied illegitimately while ALSO being depressed at how popular that might be. So, there is a sort of key difference.

Anyway, I appreciate Marty Lederman's discussion, including his link to one joined with Jack Goldsmith, providing a sort of bipartisan viewpoint. It's a complicated question though such aspects such as how an agreement might only apply to one President etc. underline how it is not a 'treaty.' The discussion also notes how such executive agreements have had a long history ("at least to 1908") and to the degree this is about rules over sanctions, Congress could regulate that as a matter of international commerce for one thing. And, though I don't know really, perhaps this whole thing is itself a subcategory of some past treaty touching upon nuclear matters.

The whole thing is quite complicated and Just Security, Lawfare etc. probably are places to go to dwell on the details. A "cheat sheet" would be appreciated though.

 

Sandy Levinson does dislike various aspects of the Constitution, including more than one there since the Founding, though unlike some, he doesn't as a whole think it is being applied wrongly. (I'm sure he does as we all do in individual cases) http://solusi-sehat.com/cara-mengencangkan-kulit-wajah-secara-alami-dengan-masker/ | http://solusi-sehat.com/cara-menghilangkan-jerawat-dan-bekasnya-secara-alami-dengan-cepat/
 

As one of the usual suspects in comment threads at this Blog, but speaking only for myself of course, are we witnessing a nuanced polarization of posters only one of whom permits comments? If even more of this Blog's posters join in, we may get a comparable match to the recent Fox TV Clown Limo debates. Are "We, the Usual Suspects ... " being sidelined/silenced?
 

Shag: Are "We, the Usual Suspects ... " being sidelined/silenced?

You are just picking up on this?

I suspect Jack wants an exchange between fellow academics.
 

As a guest at this Blog, I do not seriously contest any "no comment" policy of any of the posters. I'm suggesting a deep breath to avoid too many tangents (mixing of issues) by people for whom I have great respect. My "We, the Usual Suspects ... " was an attempt (weak, perhaps) at a parody of a "Preamble" to the Legal Blogosphere Constitution. Being "sidelined/silenced" doesn't prevent listening to the exchanges of these posters. If I felt my views were that important, I could always start my own blog, adorned by a picture of me with two bags over my head (in case one breaks).
 

The blog might think about having some sort of "open thread" to allow discussion of posts that don't allow comments. It's not my blog but do think comments can be a positive thing. But, perhaps such a thread would be deem to require oversight and the professors here rather not do that. Anyway, if I find a typo or something, I try to let them know. A recent post by Marty Lederman, e.g., included a bad url. There are email addresses included on the side panel.
 

Or maybe because Mr. Obama's surrender to Iran only musters a bit over 25% support in polling.

A rather substantial number of Democrats are going to have to act against the wishes of their constituents (again) to sustain an Obama veto.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 5:25 PM


The Iran deal and the GOP appear to have similar poll numbers.
 

BB:

The GOP base's dislike for the progressive GOP establishment only comes in second to their loathing of the progressive Democrat establishment.

That is why you have the seeming paradox of a political party with low approval gaining 1,000+ elected seats over the past three election cycles.

Voters are firing Democrats first and electing Republicans a distant second.

If you get out of your blue cocoon and listen to everyday folks at restaurants and other public places talking politics, you will sometimes hear near-reviolutionary talk. I was on vacation last week climbing mountains. Over the weekend, my wife and I are soaking at a hot springs and the other patrons in our pool were quite openly talking to one another about how imprisoning the entire administration may be the only way to stop all the outlaw behavior in between talking about their vacation.
 

If you get out of your blue cocoon and listen to everyday folks at restaurants
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 11:38 AM


LOL

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

Sparky, you live in the right wing nutcase capital.
 

I won't often say that BB is right about something, but your expectation that McCain would win does somewhat impune your judgement. Granted, you didn't know that McCain was going to give up partway through the campaign, but you were still a lot more optimistic about his chances than I thought reasonable.

 

BB: Sparky, you live in the right wing nutcase capital.

I was soaking at artsy Pagosa Sorings after eating breakfast at Two Chicks and a Hippie and was quite surprised to hear the comments there. Apparently, the pre-revolutionary sentiments are migrating to from the purple areas to the blue.

Bernie Sanders' rallies are filled with Democrats who sense the system is not working, but are buying Sanders neo-National Socialist rhetoric scapegoating an unnamed cabal of plutocrats and foreigners rather than progressivism itself for the failure.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421369/bernie-sanders-national-socialism

Hitler used the same technique to distinguish his National Socialism from the failed German progressive state of the time.

 

Brett: but your expectation that McCain would win does somewhat impune your judgement.

:::sigh:::

I made a comment about a single favorable poll before the 2008 election.

Given that this has been BB's standard response for nearly seven years now when he cannot rebut one of my points tells you all you need to know about my factual track record.


 

I made a comment about a single favorable poll before the 2008 election.

Given that this has been BB's standard response for nearly seven years now when he cannot rebut one of my points tells you all you need to know about my factual track record.


# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 1:33 PM


Blankshot, you made the comment on the day of the election when it was obvious to EVERYONE that Obama was going to win. You did the same thing with Mittens. You were convinced until the very end that the polling was incorrect. In short, you're a fraud.
 

Evidence for the revolution:

Gallup polling

Aug 6, 2015

Obama 45 approval 50 disapproval

Aug 6, 2007

Bush 34% approval 62% disapproval

Oddly, frauds like Baghdad Bart were not talking about the impending revolution back in 2007.

 

BB:

You have an extremely selective memory. Go back and review my posts here on election eve 2008. I posted that the white working class Reagan Democrats would decide that election and they did by going for Obama in the largest numbers of any Democrat since LBJ.

I did indeed project a Romney win in 2012 because the only previous incumbent president winning reelection with economic numbers this bad was FDR after the voters fired the Republicans. In contrast, the voters had just fired the Democrat House in 2010. Team Obama pulled off a completely ahistoric victory by getting out his urban base in the minority of districts the president won and suppressing the white working class votes in the majority of House districts he lost. I know of no other presidential election like it.

So, if you want to offer up my presidential mis-prognostication as a red herring when you cannot rebut one of my arguments, use the 2012 election. You won't look so clueless.


 

BB:

Read my posts again for content.

I noted that discontent with our failing progressive political economy is very much bipartisan.
 

You have an extremely selective memory.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 2:22 PM


Physician, heal thyself!!!

I'm "selecting" the moronic election day "these poll numbers are great for John McCain" comment for a reason. It was obvious to EVERYONE that Obama was going to win. Even then you were desperately trying to prop up McCain. You found a single poll that gave you some hope, so you pimped that because it's all you had. That's what you do. No matter how wrong you are, and how much evidence there is proving that you're wrong, you latch on to the slightest thing that will support your position and ride it to death.
 

I noted that discontent with our failing progressive political economy is very much bipartisan.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 2:24 PM


Dumbfuck, why didn't you "note" any of this while Bush was driving the country off a cliff?
 

Just to be clear, that is a rhetorical question. You didn't "note" anything because you're a fraudulent hack.
 

Once again in the manner of BB:

"Those post-Fox TV GOP Clown Limo debate polls for T-RUMP are great*, especially the 32% national poll."

*Great for Clinton/Sanders.


 

I did not watch the Fox TV GOP Clown Limo debate because I have only basic cable so that Fox is not available in my home. But I have followed up with regular TV snippets, political talk shows, as well as via the Internet. In commentaries on the debate, I have noted references to "Former reality television star Donald Trump ...." "Former"? What "The Donald" has done is notch up - crank up? - the reality show concept to the Republican Party's brand. The combover is wagging the body of the Republican Party. The mirror image of the other 16 candidates is reflected in "The Donald." We are watching GOP sausage being made. Fortunately we have pure food laws to protect most of us. According to post-debate polls a significant percentage of Republicans are standing in line for that GOP sausage; mercifully, hopefully, they have coverage under Obamacare.
 

The transcript is online:

http://time.com/3988276/republican-debate-primetime-transcript-full-text/
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Shag:

It is sad that you Democrats no longer have nomination debates and instead coronate your nominee.

I might pay to see an open socialist debate your queen about her family making a nine figure fortune by selling influence to the world's plutocrats.
 

Thanks for the link.

Regarding the symposium, (Which I'm guessing is not going to involve the possiblity of comments any time soon.) why on God's green Earth would you chose as your poster boy for racist cops killing innocent black men, a guy who'd just robbed a convenience store? There aren't any *innocent* innocent black men being shot to use as poster boys? Of course there are. So why pick Michael Brown, thug? Heck, why pick Trayvon Martin as a poster boy, when we knew almost immediately that he'd been shot in self defense? Why keep picking poster boys who will almost inevitably turn out to have been rightously shot?

Walter Scott would be a perfect poster boy if you wanted to actually unite people to fix a problem. So, why's he not the topic of the symposium?

I'm afraid I understand why: Walter Scott DOES unite people. They're not being picked for poster boys because it's the best way to solve this problem, because everybody will agree a wrong was committed. They're being picked as poster boys specifically because the majority won't object to their being shot. Will approve of it, even.

Because the goal isn't to solve a problem, but instead to inflame racial tensions. Racial tensions are *useful*. Angry people don't think clearly, are easy to manipulate. I think that is what is going on here, why thugs like Brown and Martin keep getting put forth deceptively as innocent victims, when they're anything but.

Racial tensions are being deliberately stoked in the US, because they're politically useful. That the resulting riots ruin the lives of the very communities they're supposedly trying to help is just the egg broken to make an omlette.
 

I might pay to see an open socialist debate your queen about her family making a nine figure fortune by selling influence to the world's plutocrats.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 9:58 AM


This really doesn't seem like a strong argument for the Party that is now owned by the Koch brothers.
 

BB:

When have the Koch brothers paid a public official or her family?

Once again, you Democrats confuse the wealthy exercising their own political speech with bribing public officials.
 

Blankshot, you seem to be confusing "bribing public officials" with "WAAAH! I DON'T LIKE THE CLINTONS!!!!!".
 

BB and the rest of the Democrats here:

This is a completely serious question. I would very much appreciate a serious answer.

Does it bother you in the least that the three Clintons have made a nine figure fortune in "speaking fees" of up to million dollars a pop (plus lavish travel expenses) paid by foreign nations and the world's wealthy while Hillary Clinton served as Sec State and many of those patrons had business in front of the State Department and other agencies of the government?
 

Our own 'rhoidless WFCOIO's rejoinder to BB:

"When have the Koch brothers paid a public official or her family?

Once again, you Democrats confuse the wealthy exercising their own political speech with bribing public officials."

perhaps should be tested by what "The Donald" has said about himself and other wealthy people who make political contributions to politicians of both parties and what they expect in return. Of course the wealthy can exercise their 1st A rights with their boombox political speech that drowns out many of "We, the People." That is an entitlement of the 0.01%. And the Koch Bros. are really, really richer than "The Donald."
 

Does it bother you in the least that the three Clintons have made a nine figure fortune in "speaking fees" of up to million dollars a pop (plus lavish travel expenses) paid by foreign nations and the world's wealthy while Hillary Clinton served as Sec State and many of those patrons had business in front of the State Department and other agencies of the government?
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 10:52 AM


Blankshot, I don't like any of it. I might be more upset about it if I thought that Republicans were willing to do anything about it, but they're not. They're even more eager to get to the money trough.
 

Shag:

Spending your own money on your own political speech is a fundamental right guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Giving money to a political campaign is not a right and is regulated by law.

Giving money to the political candidate herself in exchange for political influence is generally considered to be a crime.
 

BB: I don't like any of it. I might be more upset about it if I thought that Republicans were willing to do anything about it, but they're not. They're even more eager to get to the money trough.

What precisely does the GOP need to do? Bribery and corruption are already crimes and the GOP does not control the Department of Justice.

Would you support a criminal investigation of the Clintons' speaking fees to determine if Justice can prove a quid pro quo(s)?

If the Bushes were doing this, I would damn well be calling for one.
 

If the Bushes were doing this, I would damn well be calling for one.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 11:15 AM


LOL You are 100% in favor of the Kochs, or any other plutocrat with the enough money, buying GOP candidates.
 

So our own 'rhoidless WFCOIO is fully in favor of the wealthy boomboxers drowning out the many without moneyed amplification. Compare the technology available in 1791 with the technology today on speech.

 

Shag:

There is no such thing as too much political speech.

Attempts to ration political speech serve two illegitimate purposes - to protect incumbent politicians and to silence businesses the progressive government is attempting to direct.
 

There is no such thing as too much political speech.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 12:03 PM


Unless the people doing the speaking are named Clinton. Amiriteoramirite?
 

BB:

Have I ever argued that wealthy progressives cannot spend their own money to communicate their own political speech?

Once again, you confuse the wealthy exercising their own political speech with folks like the Clintons selling influence for vast personal gain.
 

Once again, you confuse the wealthy exercising their own political speech with folks like the Clintons selling influence for vast personal gain.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 12:33 PM


I'm not confusing anything, numbnuts. The Kochs are buying influence just as much as anyone who pays the Clintons to speak. You seem to be fine with that. Well, you're fine with it as long as your side is the one getting the money.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

BB: The Kochs are buying influence just as much as anyone who pays the Clintons to speak.

OK, let's examine that claim.

Buying influence is paying an elected representative/government official to enact a policy.

When the Kochs communicate their own libertarian political speech to the general public, what elected representative/government official did they cause to implement what policy for what benefit?
 

Blankshot, it doesn't do the Kochs any good to communicate their preferred policies if they can't buy a candidate that will implement them.
 

BB: it doesn't do the Kochs any good to communicate their preferred policies if they can't buy a candidate that will implement them.

Sure it does. Individuals and groups communicate to convince the electorate to vote for candidates who support their stands on single issues or general ideology or against those who do not.

The communication is to the electorate not an attempt to purchase the politician.
 

Sure it does. Individuals and groups communicate to convince the electorate to vote for candidates who support their stands on single issues or general ideology or against those who do not.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 1:06 PM


That doesn't do you any good if you don't buy the candidate first. If the GOP candidate doesn't support the policies that you want, spending lots of money to get that candidate elected is going to be money wasted.

 

BB: If the GOP candidate doesn't support the policies that you want, spending lots of money to get that candidate elected is going to be money wasted.

The vast majority of the money spent on political speech to the electorate is "wasted." One side is going to lose in each election and the candidate the voters hire may campaign one way and then govern another.

Like gamblers facing odds favoring the house, they keep playing the game, though.
 

Most of the money is wasted on viable causes. Very little is wasted on causes that have no candidates that are willing to carry them out.
 

Heck, why pick Trayvon Martin as a poster boy, when we knew almost immediately that he'd been shot in self defense?
# posted by Blogger Brett : 10:10 AM


You don't watch the news much, do you? Each time Zimmerman is arrested it becomes more obvious that Trayvon Martin was just trying to defend himself.
 

That his life subsequently fell apart didn't make the self-defense that night any less obvious, which is why it was so hard to find somebody willing to try to prosecute him, and why the effort fell apart.

But, this is my point: They make people like Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown into causes, not Walter Scott, because it guarantees argument and dissention. Essentially nobody thinks Walter Scott was properly shot. Open and shut case of a police officer committing murder.

So, why not showcase him, to maximize the support for doing something?

Because they're not trying to accomplish reform. They're not trying to bring people together to solve a problem.

They're trying to accomplish what happened in Ferguson last night. Because it's useful to them, no matter how destructive it is to places like Ferguson.
 

That his life subsequently fell apart
# posted by Blogger Brett : 3:51 PM


LOL You are delusional.
 

His life subsequently followed the same pattern as you would expect for an abusive asshole with a gun who got away with murder.
 

Our own 'rhoidless WFCOIO's observation of wealthy political contributors:

"Like gamblers facing odds favoring the house, they keep playing the game, though."

suggests that the Koch Bros., Adelson and their ilk suffer from addiction, or perhaps are in "The Donald's" category of "losers." Perhaps in due course creative destructionism will apply to Super PACS. Wealthy boomboxers can be annoying
 

"I leave open the possibility that Schumer really and truly believes that the Deal constitutes a genuine danger to the country. In that case, he is under a duty to become the active leader of the opposition and solicit votes not only in the Senate, but also in the House."

I don't know what is in my senator's heart of hearts (prefer Ms. Gillibrand myself) but not sure of his "duty" here either. He can oppose the deal up to a point, but not so much that he has to be such an "active leader" of the opposition to it.
 



شركة سمر لخدمات التنظيف
شركة نقل أثاث بجدة
شركة تنظيف بجدة
شركة مكافحة حشرات بجدة
شركة تنظيف خزانات بجدة


الشركه العربيه الاولي لخدمات كشف تسربات المياه والعوازل المائيه بالرياض‏
شركة كشف تسربات المياة بالرياض


شركة انوار المدينة للخدمات التنظيف
شركة تتنظيف بالمدينة المنورة
شركة تنظيف فلل بالمدينة المنورة
شركة تنظيف شقق بالمدينة المنورة
شركة تنظيف منازل بالمدينة المنورة
شركة تنظيف مجالس بالمدينة المنورة
شركة تنظيف مسابح بالمدينة المنورة
شركة تنظيف خزانات بالمدينة المنورة
شركة مكافحة حشرات بالمدينة المنورة
شركة رش مبيدات بالمدينة المنورة
شركة مكافحة نمل ابيض بالمدينة المنورة
شركة نقل عفش بالمدينة المنورة
شركة نقل اثاث بالمدينة المنورة
شركة عزل اسطح بالمدينة المنورة
شركة عزل حمامات بالمدينة المنورة
شركة عزل خزانات بالمدينة المنورة
شركة تسليك مجارى بالمدينة المنورة
شركة كشف تسربات المياة بالمدينة المنورة
شركة شفط بيارات بالمدينة المنورة
شركة تنظيف مساجد بالمدينة المنوره
شركة تنظيف كنب المدينة المنورة
شركة الصفاء للخدمات التنظيف

 


شركة الصفاء لخدمات التنظيف
شركة تنظيف بالمدينة المنورة
شركة نظافة بالمدينة المنورة
شركة تنظيف فلل بالمدينة المنورة
شركة تنظيف شقق بالمدينة المنورة
شركة تنظيف منازل بالمدينة المنورة
شركة تنظيف مجالس بالمدينة المنورة
شركة تنظيف كنب بالمدينة المنورة
شركة تنظيف ستائر بالمدينة المنورة
شركة تنظيف مسابح بالمدينة المنورة
شركة تنظيف خزانات بالمدنية المنورة
شركة رش مبيدات بالمدينة المنورة
شركة عزل اسطح بالمدينة المنورة
شركة عزل حمامات بالمدينة المنورة
شركة عزل خزانات بالمدينة المنورة
شركة كشف تسربات المياة بالمدينة المنورة
شركة مكافحة حشرات بالمدينة المنورة
شركة مكافحة نمل ابيض بالمدينة المنورة
شركة كشف تسربات المياة بالرياض
شركة نقل عفش بالمدينة المنورة
شركة تسليك مجارى بالمدينة المنورة
شركة الصفاء للخدمات التنظيف
شركة السعد لخدمات التنظيف
شركة الانوار للخدمات التنظيف


شركة تنظيف بالرياض
شركة تنظيف فلل شقق بالرياض
شركة تنظيف سجاد بالرياض
شركة تنظيف منازل بالدمام
شركة تنظيف فلل بالدمام

 



شركة الصفاء للخدمات التنظيف
شركة نظافة بالاحساء
شركة تنظيف فلل بالاحساء
شركة تنظيف شقق بالاحساء
شركة تنظيف منازل بالاحساء
شركة تنظيف مجالس بالاحساء



شركة تنظيف خزانات بالاحساء
شركة مكافحة حشرات بالاحساء
شركة رش مبيدات بالاحساء
شركة مكافحة نمل ابيض بالاحساء
شركة عزل اسطح بالاحساء
شركة عزل خزانات بالاحساء
شركة تسليك مجارى بالاحساء
شركة كشف تسربات المياة بالاحساء



شركة الصفاء للخدمات التنظيف
شركة تنظيف بالطائف
شركة تنظيف فلل بالطائف
شركة تنظيف شقق بالطائق
شركة تنظيف خزانات بالطائف
شركة رش مبيدات بالطائف
شركة مكافحة حشرات بالطائف


شركة الصفاء لخدمات التنظيف
شركة تنظيف بتبوك
شركة تنظيف فلل بتبوك
شركة تنظيف شقق بتبوك
شركة تنظيف منازل بتبوك
شركة تنظيف خزانات بتبوك
شركة تنظيف مجالس بتبوك
شركة مكافحة حشرات بتبوك
شركة رش مبيدات بتبوك
شركة عزل خزانات بتبوك
شركة تسليك مجارى بتبوك
شركة كشف تسربا المياة بتبوك



شركة الصفاء لخدمات التنظيف
شركة تنظيف بابها
شركة تنظيف فلل بابها
شركة تنظيف شقق بابها
شركة تنظيف منازل بابها
شركة تنظيف خزانات بابها
شركة تنظيف مجالس بابها
شركة تنظيف موكيت بابها
شركة مكافحة حشرات بابها
شركة رش مبيدات بابها
شركة عزل خزانات بابها
شركة تسليك مجارى بابها
شركة كشف تسربات المياه بابها



 

شركة بن طامى افضلٍشركة تنظيف خزانات بالرياض
وذلك بشهادة عملائها
 

لا داعى للقلق وانت تتعامل مع شركة اركان المملكه للتنظيف والمكافحه والتسليك
وغير ذالك من كافه انواع التنظيف فى المملكه السعوديه باكملها اذا
كل ما عليكم هو زياره صفحتنا للتطلع على اقل الاسعار المتاحه
والتى تفى احتياجاتكم الخاصه
شركة مكافحة حشرات بالدمام

شركة مكافحة حشرات بابها

شركة رش مبيدات بجازان

شركة مكافحه حشرات بالاحساء

شركة رش مبيدات بالرياض

شركة اركان المملكه

شركة تنظيف بابها

شركة تنظيف فلل بابها

شركة تنظيف بالدمام

شركة تنظيف منازل بالرياض

شركة تنظيف منازل بابها

شركة تنظيف منازل بخميس مشيط

شركة تنظيف شقق بالدمام

شركة تنظيف بالطائف

شركة مقاولات بجازان
شركة تنظيف بالاحساء
الشركة الاولى والكبيره والتى لها تاريخ كبير فى كل المجالات مع شركة اركان المملكه تعامل معنا تصل الى بر المان
معنا تجد كل العروض والمميزات التى لا تجدوها مع احد
اذا شركة اركان المملكه هى من اعرق الشركات فى كافه المجالات والخدمات اذا نحن نتعامل فى كل ما هو تنظيف ومكافحه وكشف تسربات
اتصلوا نصلكم اينما كنتم فى كل وقت وكل مكان
 

مع شركة اركان المملكه للتنظيف,ومكافحه الحشرات,وكشف التسربات,وتسليك المجارى,ونقل العفش,وتنظيف البيوت انت
تتعامل مع افضل شركة بالمملكه ككل لانها تتعامل باقل الاسعار المتاحه فى مجال العمل
ونحن نوفر لك كل ما هو جديد وبخصم 30%فى مجال الحساب اذا معنا انت فى كل امان ممكن
اتصل بشركة اركان المملكه لانها الافضل دائما فى كل المجالات
تمتلك الشركة كل وسائل التوصيل والنقل 24 ساعه

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
شركة كشف تسربات المياه بجازان

شركة كشف تسربات المياه بخميس مشيط

شركة كشف تسربات المياه بابها

شركة كشف تسربات المياه بالدمام

شركة كشف تسربات المياه بالرياض

شركة نقل اثاث بجازان

شركة تسليك مجارى بالدمام

شركة تسليك مجارى بخميس مشيط

شركة تسليك مجارى بجازان

شركة تسليك مجارى بنجران

شركة مكافحه حشرات بخميس مشيط

شركة تسليك مجارى بابها

شركة نقل عفش بالرياض

شركة نقل عفش بخميس مشيط

هكذا شركة اركان المملكه تقدم الخدمه الممتازه التى بدونها لا تستطيعوا العمل الجاد
اننا نتعامل بالافضليه الكامله لاننا نتعامل بكل الاسعار البسيطه والممكنه
تحت شعار الراحه الكامله والاداء المتميز والخدمه طول اليوم
معنا انت فى كل امان اتصل نصلك اينما كنت
 

This really answered my problem, thank you! Webpage Webpage Read More
 

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts
Home